Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tree Doctors

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. –MuZemike 01:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tree Doctors

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

Tagged for speedy G11, then redirected to Arborist. But though the spam has been removed, the page creator disagrees with the redirect and reverted it twice already, and so we're left with something that probably meets speedy deletion criterion A7. This is about an Ontario-based arborist business. Delete then recreate as a protected redirect to Arborist. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 06:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete and Salt - originally started as pure promotion. When this was cleaned up it had little to say and was twice redirected to Arborist and reverted by sole and sole-purpose author. Now could be speedied as non-notable company but author is somewhat intransigent and without an AFD and salted redirect I suspect it will continue to turn up as a puff piece Porturology (talk) 06:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unremarkable local business; no indications of notability. MikeWazowski (talk) 13:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (& salt if req.) - no indication of Notability of this WP:Local business. (EAB is an "infestation", not a disease, that destroys the nutrient transport and uptake of water abilities throughout the tree.) Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 21:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:56, 15 November 2011 (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.