Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Alien

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. Courcelles (talk) 00:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Red Alien[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Of the six references listed, the one from Journalism.co.uk is a press release and the second is a routine notice of a branch office opening, so probably not admissible under WP:ORGDEPTH. The third source, from Cambridge Network, is not independent because Red Alien is one of their members [1]. The remaining sources are brief mentions. Article author has been blocked for being an Orangemoody sock. Altamel (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that the references provided fall short of the corporate notability threshold. That aside, it's my personal belief that any Orangemoody-created article that has not been significantly edited by unrelated editors should be presumptively deleted. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my searches found nothin' better than this. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failure to pass WP:CORP, namely lack of in depth coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 17:55, 17 September 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.