Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Building Investigation & Testing Services

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Building Investigation & Testing Services

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

Unremarkable company - article looks like an advert, with no references that actually establish the company's notability. Biker Biker (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble with some industries is that there are not a lot of references on the internet showing just how notable a company is for one reason or another. This is especially true when the industry is rather specific. The company under discussion is very notable in their industry - they are used by many notable companies that are in Wikipedia however due to the nature of the business it's very rare to get any company writing about how their floors were tested and weren't up to scratch - they really want to keep that under wraps. However I have included a reference of a company which provides raised access floors which indicates that they have their products tested by the company under discussion - and that suggests that the company under discussion is well respected (i.e. notable) in the industry (or surely they wouldn't mention the company name). WyrmUK 13:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apparently zero notice anywhere except in online trade "press" plus a customer mentioning that, well, they're a customer -- by this standard any concern not wholly defunct would be notable. And even if there were "a lot of references on the internet," it almost certainly wouldn't help. You need to argue from WP:COMPANY, not from vague good intentions. EEng (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete no sources [1]. LibStar (talk) 07:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no third party coverage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:04, 6 December 2010 (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.