Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecourier
- 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The result was withdrawn. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Ecourier
Request an admin close as Withdrawn by nominator. Springnuts (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- )
Disagree, reliable sources include Economist, Financial Times, The Times & Evening Standard which have all written substantial articles on the Company and are cited/listed. I cannot find any parts which is not NPOV. Previous discussion determined the company to be notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.5.19 (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note this IP address has edited almost exclusively on this article and that on the company's founder: see [[1]]. Springnuts (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep The press material may be significant enough. I improved the article by removing some of the more outrageous promotional material, such as portraits of the founders. After the article is dealt with, we need to consider the articles for Jay Bregman. This is a typical example of how COI can lead to a very poor article, when possibly a less promotional one would not have been nominated for deletion. DGG (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by Nominator - On reflection I was over harsh with this nomination: in my defence I was blinded by the overt peacockery in the article. I will try tidying and de-puffing it. Springnuts (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2009 (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.