Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1.800.Vending (3rd nomination)

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 20:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1.800.Vending

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

Lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Company appears to fail WP:CORP. Recently material was removed, but I think it was justifiable. It was mainly primary sources and government records. Some of the removed material wasn't even about this company. 2 previous AfD's were no consensus closures that were almost cut and paste discussions by the same editors. The fact that the company exists isn't in question. the notability, however, is questionable to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. The article does not now, nor did it previously have any quality secondary sources. I did a quick Google News search and also found none. The article should be deleted for notability, but even if the topic was notable, it could be deleted for lack of WP:V. The article has been AfD nominated twice previously, but none of the Keep votes actually provided sources for V & CORP or a policy-based argument. CorporateM (Talk) 14:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I've reviewed the longer entry. Outside of a claim by Connectiticut Department of Banking, nothing suggest coverage in independent, reliable sources, and one government complaint (which apparently wasn't important to be picked up by press, or at least no other sources are presented) does not make a company notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Before the article was stubbed, there were already no verifiable sources indicating notability, and searching turns up nothing outside of user-submit business complaint websites. Based on previous AfDs I tried to look up what the supposed fraud was that was supposed to have been notable, but didn't find anything at all. As it is now, this is just not quite a speedy A7. Ivanvector (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CORP....William 01:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP and non-trivial coverage does not exist. - tucoxn\^talk 23:06, 6 January 2014 (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.