Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FideliTrade Incorporated

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FideliTrade Incorporated[edit]

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

Non-notable company lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. References are mainly listings or other items that do not meet WP:RS. reddogsix (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Additional references have been added.Ty1695 (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The added references are neither in-depth, non-trivial support. They are brief single line listings. reddogsix (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete a respectable business, but none of the sources are really independent. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I couldn't check all sources (paywalls etc), I concur with both remarks by reddogsix. There's unfortunately a lot of people who believe an avalanche of in-passing mentions confer notability and provide enough to write an article, and indeed sometimes the impression such sourcing gives of apparent depth makes such articles survive. However, we really don't have enough to write a solid, meaty, independent article here. Given the issues of many non-notable businesses trying to promotionally get articles in wikipedia (note, I am not saying that was the situation here), we do need to be reasonably strict and consistent on this, at least where someone starts the discussion. Martinp (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2018 (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.