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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Randall-Reilly

[edit]

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

Article is a clear promotion attempt. The business in question has very little, if any, exposure in wider media and secondary sources. There are no inline citations and the only references included are not of a news or secondary source nature. By and large, the references are "profile pages" in business directories. Another user previously stated the article is copied directly from the business's "Our History" page.

I don't believe this business is notable enough to merit inclusion, but even if it is notable enough, this article almost certainly would require a massive overhaul to comport to neutral POV requirements. Deletion is the pragmatic, ethical, and proper thing to do. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 21:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as I just noticed, the article was previously proposed via PROD for the reason "non-notable company." I believe the author disputed the PROD without making any substantial changes to the nature of the article. --Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 21:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 01:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 20:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and references fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:50, 19 August 2017 (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.