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. I am largely discounting Fifthavenuebrands, as they are a new user who has submitted votes with poor rationale not only here but at a large number of AfDs over a very short period of time. Based on the article history, they evidently never had time to work on it, and no reliable sources or evidence of notability were discussed at this debate. ST47 (talk) 13:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SCAFCO[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I'm submitting this for consideration for deletion on account of a lack of notability, after seeing discussions to that effect on the article's Talk page indicating a mutual inability to locate satisfactory sources. I can't find any either—and the company's new name, "Stone Group of Companies", turns up virtually nothing. Largoplazo (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps there must be a way to source this article sufficiently. If I have time I will work on it later. But the company seems notable and I believe that this article actually has potential if substantiated correctly. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 09:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This amounts to saying that it's notable because it must be notable despite a lack of evidence that it's notable. You finish with the tautology that if it's notable, then it will be notable. An argument made at AFD that a topic is notable needs to actually provide reasons to find it so when the nomination is based on the premise that there aren't sufficient reasons. Largoplazo (talk) 13:05, 15 November 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.