Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lace International Ltd

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. MBisanz ^talk 20:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lace International Ltd[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Notability is not inherited, publishing notable video games does not make the publisher itself notable. Article is WP:REFBOMB'ed to look like something, but they're mostly listings of companies and video games. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Clarification: I have some questions about notability, just for better understanding. Please see the Talk page for this Article for Deletion entry for my questions. Even posting clarification on my own Talk page would be fine; I would just like to be better educated for future contributions.

Oneilius (talk) 03:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I went through the current sourcing, which consists of business listings, repackaged press releases, and posts by community members (not journalists). I don't see significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?), or at least enough to write a detailed, sourced article on the subject. Please {{ping}} me if you find better sourcing offline or in academic databases. czar 05:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Advertorial content on an otherwise unremarkable company. Souring not sufficient to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:19, 7 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.