Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LiveAuctioneers

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. No evidence of notability, via significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, has been presented during this discussion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LiveAuctioneers

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

A fourteen-year-old company (according to the article) which has only managed to amass passing mentions and a short Huffington Post article. Calton | Talk 01:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 03:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: May only be a stub, but it appears to pass WP:GNG. –Matthew - (talk) 15:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In what way does it "appear to pass WP:GNG"? There are no references provided that meet the criteria in WP:RS. Passing references to things that have been auctioned using this company are not sufficient and passing references or inclusions in lists are likewise not accepted as references for the purposes of establishing notability. Have you discovered other references? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References do not meet WP:RS and therefore notability has not been established. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 04:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I would recommend for the closing admin to close this as a 'delete'. This is one of the final two discussions listed at WP:OLD. J 947 21:46, 10 March 2017 (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.