- 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. v/r - TP 03:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Profusion Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Promo for a non-notable company. A7 refused because of "several reliable references" being "included", which isn't true (the references all either fail RS or aren't substantial coverage). Miracle Pen (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2011 (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) 00:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Cites are all self-made - press releases or given interviews - nothing independent. Back office outfit with no notability or any assertion of notability to warrant inclusion here. Sadly it is hardly even promotional Velella Velella Talk 12:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete refs need to be independent, so fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:41, 8 September 2011 (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.