Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perr&Knight

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. Mkdw ^talk 16:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perr&Knight

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

Not notable firm, and promotional article. � One of the top 20 is a very specialized branch of an industry is not notability. Repeated claims to be the "market leader"without nay documentation for them. Having employees who have professional certification is not notability. Trying to have an article on this basis is promotional. DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Ratewatch tool they created is well covered for an industry of 2.5 million employed. To me, this is interesting stuff. I've done a rewrite Talk:Perr&Knight#Tone_suggestions_to_resolve_AfD_nomination_concerns that puts the notability in the lede, offloads a sentence into the infobox and I think changes to the tone. I did put this through AfC, but I've got no COI in this article. --Cheers-- 009o9 (talk) 10:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

is there any third party source for that? DGG ( talk ) 20:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent sources, they might be known in the insurance trade, but have not acquired any notability Kraxler (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now until better coverage cancan be achieved and the best results I found were this. SwisterTwister talk 22:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The size of an organization, while taken into account, shouldn't be the sole arbiter of notability. Searches showed nothing which seems to meet the notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:35, 15 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.