Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rakuten trade

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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:19, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rakuten trade[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Company does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I have added a basic reference, but see that as no more than basic verification that this is a company going about its business. No evidence of attained notability. (Note there have been several article instances speedy-deleted previously, both as Rakuten trade and as Rakuten Trade.)AllyD (talk) 10:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is a veritable blizzard of coverage on Rakuten Trade. Most of it drops out from failing reliable/independent (with the latter including a few reliable sources using press releases/interviews). Most of the remainder drops out after failing WP:CORPDEPTH. The remainder fails WP:SIGCOV. I also did a look in the own-language name, and got less than I'd thought. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:34, 30 August 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.