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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aap3[edit]

Aap3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Rely only on non-credible media sources. Article is written only for company promotional and advertising purposes. No significant coverage by independent media. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here. does not meet notability criteria. Light21 15:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)Light2021 (talk) 14:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete what RS coverage there is is clearly promotional-push churnalism and not evidence of actual newsworthiness. Lots of press releases in the refs too - David Gerard (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete by all means as the worst section, of course, is the Services section which essentially states what there is to know about the company's business, none of that actually substantiates an article; nothing else listed is in fact acceptable, as it only serves to tell the viewers about the company and what there is to say. This company's environment is PR so the sources are going to be PR....and that's exactly what the sources are, all 1 to 10. SwisterTwister talk 02:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: After research, I could not find enough WP:RS to establish WP:GNG. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:PROMO; sections include Activities, Product & Services, and Sponsorship which clearly marks this as "corporate spam{. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:44, 26 September 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.