Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyclescheme

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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclescheme

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

No significant coverage shown, hard to find any via google. Does not seem like a notable company, but A7 is questionable here because there's one link. — Timneu22 · talk 16:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, we need two instances of such coverage. Daniel Case (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclescheme were the UK's fastest growing privately owned company last year, with a turnover in excess of £25m... The directors met with PM David Cameron last week to discuss, amongst other things, the success of the business, and has received backing from Sir Richard Branson. It is a notable company in the UK with large press coverage, ranging from National newspapers to bike industry discussion forums. It also has notable clients such as Sainsbury's, ASDA, the BBC, IBM, a large number of the UK's Police Authorities, Local Councils and NHS Trusts as well as SMEs. As requested, a second reliable source has been added, with more to follow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marksellick (talk • contribs) 17:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - It would seem that Cyclescheme, who created the article, and Marksellick are the same person. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 14:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As you can see, we have nominated this for deletion because there are no sources to back up your claims. You say "it is notable" but you provide no proof. It is likely that this article will not be deleted if you can provide reliable sources to substantiate the reasons for this company's notability or significance. It's up to you. — Timneu22 · talk 17:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There also seems to be a clear conflict of interest by you editing this article. — Timneu22 · talk 17:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: GNews gives some more coverage here and here, which may be enough to tip this over the boundary of WP:CORP. Perhaps we could merge some of it to Cycle to Work scheme (which seriously needs improving anyway). Alzarian16 (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge: I second the suggestion to redirect to Cycle to Work scheme. If Marksellick's claims can be backed up by reliable sources, I would consider changing my vote. Ebikeguy (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did a bit of research and created two credible, IMHO, references (actually, I just cut and pasted them in from other areas/articles). There could be some substance here, but I still think step one would be to merge with Cycle to Work scheme and redirect. If the article can be fleshed out in the near future, it might merit its own entry. And, Markselleck, please heed those voicing conflict of interest concerns. If you keep editing in a manner that raises NPOV concerns, you will hurt the article's chances for survival. Ebikeguy (talk) 04:47, 9 December 2010 (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.