Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BillSaveUK

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 23:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BillSaveUK[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Of the 8 sources 1. is a passing mention 2. 3. 4. don't mention the subject of the article. 5. is churnalism or a press release 6. is proof that it is a member of NAPIT 7.is the subject's own web site 8. doesn't mention the subject and is a brochure for an energy efficiency program. Fails WP:NORG notably WP:ORGDEPTH fails WP:GNG Domdeparis (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORP, lacks in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Notability cannot be inherited from former company Mark Group, which had a significantly different business model, was much larger and had a more varied clientele. --Bejnar (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- nothing to "save" here :-). No sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.