Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tradepedia

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tradepedia[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP: the sole independent source is a mere regulatory directory. No depth of coverage demonstrated. Brianhe (talk) 10:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Brianhe (talk) 10:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands - no references, a basic WP:BEFORE shows mostly press releases - David Gerard (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not only the company age would affect notability, but then there's no actual substance of any significance or notability; I frankly consider this speedy material as there are simply "significance claims" because of other companies. SwisterTwister talk 23:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would have done speedy but wasn't sure if it was eligible after a contested PROD. A Cyprus IP who is part of a set who seem to be interested in the same articles as the author for some reason removed the PROD w/o rationale or improving it [1]. Should brush up on my deletion process awareness. - Brianhe (talk) 00:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Forget notability, there is absolutely no claim of significance here. This is a comprehensive failure of WP:CORPDEPTH. This is speedy eligible but I guess an AfD is better here to "lock down" the article title should it ever be recreated in the future. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable evidence of notability provided or found. AllyD (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lemongirl. I'd even go so far as to say she plagiarized my rationale by voting first, because that's exactly my thought on the matter. MSJapan (talk) 02:43, 24 September 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.