Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CSS Corp

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 Speedy Delete by David Gerard under G11 (non-admin closure).Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CSS Corp[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. The creator has posted on my talk page asking for me to reconsider, and pointed to a news source ([1]). In light of that, I think this merits a fuller discussion here, through I still think the coverage is not sufficient. One short mention in the news (that the company is doing some charitable work) is, IMHO, not sufficient to constitute coverage substantial enough to make it notable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I'm not seeing significant independent coverage in RS to meet GNG and CORPDEPTH. Content is strictly advertorial. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I googled and CSS Corp is involved in few more CSR initiatives found a few references [2] , [3] & [4]. They were also in the News recently for a change in leadership [5] and news of an imminent takeover [6]. User_talk:Nj1208 . With regard to advertorial nature I think we're clutching at straws with that argument - half the articles on Wiki are of the same nature —Preceding undated comment added 14:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- Most of those mention the company in passing and [7] is a press release. Please read about WP:RELIABLE and at WP:GNG/WP:NCORP about in-depth coverage requirement. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as although I've speedied as G11 which is what this is exactly, I'll comment to analyze the sources listed above; they are all PR or consisting of usual business activities, none of that amounts to substance. SwisterTwister talk 22:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied - David Gerard (talk) 10:08, 25 August 2016 (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.