Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lind-Waldock

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. KTC (talk) 03:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lind-Waldock

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

Questionably notable and improvable and the best my searches found was this, this, this and this and this has existed with not much change since January 2006. Pinging Bjones, Orangemike and Dank. SwisterTwister talk 17:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article still reads like an ad or PR release. If the company merits an article it would be better to start over from square one.Bjones (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it may have started as a press release, but, as it says, the firm is bankrupt. DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 5 November 2015 (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.