Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Markes International

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. Mkdw ^talk 01:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Markes International

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

No evidence of notability for this small company , because all the references are trivial or promotional, or -- usually -- both. . The prizes mentioned are very local, or trivial , DGG ( talk ) 06:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

talk) 00:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find anything to stop it failing
wp:NCORP on either Google or Google News. Neonchameleon (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

delete fails WP:CORP. not one mention in UK's biggest media outet, BBC. LibStar (talk) 13:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tough call. It could be notable enough. But I only found passing references in my Google news search. I don't agree with the above that it has to be in the BBC to prove notability. In a niche sector that can be unlikely. I think we can rely on niche publishers for coverage to show notability for niche industries. But only this http://www.walesonline.co.uk/business/appointments/german-firm-buys-majority-stake-2497841 and this http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/journals/mrn0999.htm possibly show notability. But both of these could also be based on press and certainly seem to be rather passing references however. The rest are press or based on press or even just listings in directories. I'm shocked that this passed AfC in the state that it is in. Thanks. For me unless a few more better references can be found it should not pass. I also think it should be edited to remove the press releases and directory listings. However, Google Scholar http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Markes+International%22 shows many results for products made by the company being used in experiments. I'm not expert enough to judge whether this can contribute to Notability. Perhaps someone or the editor of the article can explore this angle more. GoldenClockCar (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2013 (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.