Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EXFO
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 00:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
EXFO[edit]
- EXFO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is written like an advertisment, doesn't have any legitimate sources, and is not a notable business to have an article. Endofskull (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is understandable that this article should be deleted, although I don't think this is required. A simple restructure and more references would suffice. Also it may be a business that is not well known to the world, but it still might be a company that he/she might search for on Wikipedia. SkyTalk 23:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point! So we'll just keep it and throw some tags on it? Endofskull (talk) 22:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is understandable that this article should be deleted, although I don't think this is required. A simple restructure and more references would suffice. Also it may be a business that is not well known to the world, but it still might be a company that he/she might search for on Wikipedia. SkyTalk 23:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There has to be some Reference to prove that this company exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamme1234 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 10 October 2012 (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.