- 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 speedy delete, A1 as an "article" (and in this case, the term is used very loosely) with no context. Blueboy96 17:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No401kMatching (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This can never be an encyclopedic list because there are possibly thousands or even tens of thousands of such companies, and whether or not a company matches employee contributions from a given year can vary year by year. By its nature this list will always be a small and arbitrary subset and probably unmaintainable. It will always be unreliable. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — as an indiscriminate list and what appears to be soapboxing about the U.S. economy by the author. MuZemike (talk) 16:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original research - looks like somebody trying to make a point. As stated by nom, it can never be encyclopaedic, just someone trying to point fingers. – Toon(talk) 16:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete-Lacking substance ttonyb1 (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2008 (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.