Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FocusEconomics

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. speedied as G4 (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 16:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 G4 by Bishonen (non-admin closure) NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FocusEconomics[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable organization. Their work is cited by a number of publications, but there is almost no depth of coverage as required by WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 16:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 16:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 16:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For context, there is a group of editors with an apparent COI editing articles related to this company and adding links to its website. See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#FocusEconomics. Deli nk (talk) 16:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I see no obvious improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 17:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no idication of significance, clearly a promotional article.TheLongTone (talk) 12:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied. I've speedied the article since it was recreated after being deleted per the WP:PROD process, and is still entirely self-sourced. I'm considering blocking those SPAs as not being here to create an encyclopedia, but purely for promotion. Bishonen | talk 14:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you. I would support blocking for NOTHERE, undisclosed paid editing, and/or sock puppetry. - Mr X 14:17, 21 October 2015 (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.