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. Obvious nonsense. Black Kite (talk) 23:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

United Lands Central Security Agency

[edit]

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

Non-notable and only Google hits are to Wikimedia sites. No hits for the "source" name either. Likely a hoax. Rs chen 7754 04:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

Rs chen 7754 04:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be deleted as it shows business information. It may be small but it is still a growing article. Bacardi379 (talk) 05:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC) Moved from talk page. --Rs chen 7754 05:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- But does it meet WP:GNG? Sure, you have sources, but I can't tell that the first publication even exists, and the second is a course website, which is not reliable. --Rs chen 7754 05:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. These pages are a confusing mess. Is this a private security agency or a pseudo-government that maintains roads/trails and build ships? Why don't any of the articles talk about how the company operates? –Fredddie ™ 10:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
United Lands Route 1 should probably be speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A1 and WP:CSD#A3. –Fredddie ™ 10:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
This seems like you are picking apart the articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacardi379 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. When I said that, the article looked like this [1]. No context for why it was an article, so it could have been speedy deleted. –Fredddie ™ 14:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: None of the articles pass general notability guidelines. As stated in WP:CORP, "No company or organization is considered inherently notable.", and there is nothing in the (appaling) sourcing that suggests that this is not a run of the mill company like thousands of others. On top of that, two of the articles have no sourcing whatsoever. RetiredDuke 15:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all—these appear on their face to be hoaxes to me. The only Google results connected to the parent article are Wikipedia pages, and surely some news or information website out there would have some mention of it if it really did maintain ships and roads. Imzadi 1979 → 15:47, 8 September 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.