Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chamberlain Group

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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chamberlain Group[edit]

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

Article is largely promotional, has lots of links to product pages, and has no citations. A Google search doesn't turn up any reliable sources. Seems like it could be a candidate for speedy deletion, but I decide to bring it here instead. CitizenNeutral (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There was a notable Digital Millennium Copyright Act case involving this firm, but that is already covered in an article in its own right (Chamberlain_v._Skylink). AllyD (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The google news results show that several acquisitions are considered notable. Based on WP:GNG and considering the legal case, I guess this is sort of notable.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 10:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the news results. I think it's a company which is notable but the article was really poorly researched and left unsourced. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:07, 10 April 2013 (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.