Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Naming Group

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. Nakon 03:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Naming Group[edit]

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

The company is not notable. There are two items that look like references, but despite being published in what one would expect to be reliable sources, at least the CNN Money item is obviously a disguised press releases. DGG ( talk ) 15:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Trim the ones you hate, keep the USAtoday it's published & an article for sure. I'm meh on the CNN - it's a paid blog, so it's essentially a newspaper that didn't go to print or an editorial by someone CNN considers a professional. IamM1rv (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:GNG The question here is has the naming group received Significant coverage. 3 stories is not significant, the vast majority of news sources are silent on The Naming Group because the naming group is not notable. If we are going to say "well 1 story from USAtoday = notable" we need to change our guidelines to no longer say Significant. Bryce Carmony (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:08, 30 April 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.