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. — JJMC89(T·C) 05:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chess ICT

[edit]
Chess ICT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't pass WP:ORGCRIT and has no substantial coverage in WP:RS and WP:IS as PRoDded earlier here by User:Rosguill, but was deprodded by the author without any substantial change (rev). Article is full of PR links in wiki and on the web, and the only thing that author is claiming as significant for notability (1st rank in Top 100 Best Companies to Work For) doesn't really qualify to have an article on its own as it is a one-time thing (the current rank is 12) and is only valid within UK. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 04:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 04:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 04:49, 23 September 2019 (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.