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. Tone 17:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic America

[edit]

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

Per WP:TNT. Articles is entirely promotional, citations are primary, failed WP:ORG. v/r - T P 20:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:COMPANY and WP:CORP this page represents a notable company. Strategicadmin (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All I can find is routine business announcements. Clearly a firm going about its business, but no evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 09:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - would not seem to pass WP:CORPDEPTH despite unsubstantiated claims to the contrary. Stalwart111 11:29, 23 November 2013 (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.