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. czar 19:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OSTC Group[edit]

OSTC Group (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)

Dubious notability. The article demonstrates no more than mere existence. The listing of the second-level officers makes it a promotional directory entry. I cannot access the first reference, but "being in the next wave of trading firms" in Poland is not notability. The second is just a local article on a local firm, and that is not reliable for notability because local newspapers give coverage to all such firms. DGG ( talk ) 22:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because, though it is not easy to search online for "OSTC", there doesn't appear to be any general news coverage about this company (apart from the local report already cited). As the nominator says, it reads like a directory entry with no claims of notability. Sionk (talk) 04:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:PROMO on an unremarkable business with no indications of notability or significance. Close to (if not at) A7 material. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and I meant to comment when the nomination happened, I concur with the nomination in that literally everything here is simply a business listing and that's expected with such subjects as these; the history itself shows the sheer blatancy of numerous accounts all caring to only specify advertising materials, so that's all enough for delete. SwisterTwister talk 04:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable per WP:Corp; a promo piece. Kierzek (talk) 17:19, 18 November 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.