Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lindum Group

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. MBisanz ^talk 03:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lindum Group

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

Non notable and promotional. Regional firm/ The "awards" are merely "Best company to work for", a type of award which is entirely promotional, based on no clear criteria. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:11, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CORP includes this, which is often forgotten: "Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local (as in - with a circulation limited to a single city or metropolitan area) media, or media of limited interest and circulation (such as trade journals), is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." For a local-only company to meet WP:CORP something extraordinary has to be visible. I'm sure it's a perfectly good company, but it is not in any way encyclopedic. LaMona (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I planned to comment sooner, there's still nothing minimally convincing of the needed substantial notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:A WP:SPA article on a firm. Placing in a newsaper's "Best Companies to Work For" list may perhaps be worth noting within an article, but is not itself evidence of notability. Nor are my searches showing anything substantial: local coverage of routine announcements, planning disputes, an OFT list in 2008, etc. AllyD (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2016 (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.