Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ostermoor & Co.

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. Sandstein 13:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ostermoor & Co.[edit]

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

Promotional, unsourced, fails WP:GNG. The only information on it available online - other than the company's website - is nearly a decade old. Suggest speedy delete. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I removed most of the promotional content from the page but it does not meet general notability requirements and has very little coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I'm honestly not sure why this had not been A7'd as it is.... SwisterTwister talk 22:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even with the puff words removed, the sources provided or those found on an internet search do not indicate notability. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 23:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Royal broil 11:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- typical advertorial with insufficient sources to meet GNG and CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:49, 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.