Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CivicSource

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. There does not seem to be evidence that WP:N is met here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CivicSource

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

Fails WP:GNG Kleuske (talk) 21:54, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- (change from delete) This is a leading source, it's a business that is established and well known enough in the area.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Searchinit (talk • contribs) 14:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't meet WP:GNG from sources given and those I have independently found online. DarthVader (talk) 08:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks. Also, I seem to have accidently relisted a few hours early. I'll just keep the relist up, since someone else will just have to relist it in a few hours anyways. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' -- entirely promotional and coverage is either local or PR like. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:49, 26 August 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.