Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concast 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. SpinningSpark 11:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concast group

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

NB: Page moved to Concast Group

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, as I was unable to find any non-trivial WP:SECONDARY coverage. AlanS (talk) 02:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 02:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 02:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 02:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nomination. AlanS (talk) 05:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC) Not a good habit to !vote when you yourself the nominator. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 20:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I unthinkingly moved the page to fix the capitalisation problem. Rather than move it back, I'm mentioning that here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Many "references" are to the subject's website and may be an attempt to increase traffic. One series of articles duplicate coverage of the same prospective event. Not enough to provide "reliable" and "significant coverage" per WP:GNG.--Rpclod (talk) 18:31, 5 August 2014 (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.