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 keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 09:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redecard (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)

Deleted PROD per WP:PROD (previous AFD) PROD rationale by User talk:I am One of Many is This article appears to by promotional (advertising) with no third party independent references. Also, appears to be independent research. Illia Connell (talk) 06:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep User:Whpq cited various WP:RS articles about the firm in the previous AfD. Incorporating these would improve the article past the concerns expressed, but whether in or outside the article, the evidence of WP:CORPDEPTH notability exists. AllyD (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2012 (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.