Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MSP Intermark

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. Sam Walton (talk) 10:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MSP Intermark

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

Fails notability guidelines. References are dead links and, if they were to be alive, would have been non-notable sources. Nothing came up in Google News or Google. Author is a SPA [1] CerealKillerYum (talk) 08:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability not established. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 13:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Six of eight refs appear to be from article subject's self-published site. Information provided by article is not particularly important or encyclopedic.New Media Theorist (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as my searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 22:19, 5 September 2015 (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.