Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digiteck Ltd

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 Page Speedy Deleted at authors request. Amortias (T)(C) 20:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Digiteck Ltd

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

Fails WP:COMPANY. No sources establishing notability found. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GeoffreyT2000, Hello mate! Aren't the 'sources' you are referring to are the only ones that exists online? There are plenty of places which are highly notable and they are used as landmarks and public attractions but are not there on wikipedia cause not everything is found online and only 47% of world is using internet. [1] As this is a company, a different approach should be taken to judge the notability. This article however needs editing as upon some google(ing), I found a report that claims that all the major firms like City Councils, NHS, Costa Coffee and a further big list uses this company which according to me would be a major cite. Rambo Macho (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not all sources need to be online/Internet sources. Books and other local publications can also be used, if appropriately cited. --Chris (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rambo Macho: Links to the sources you found would be much appreciated (and consider that per WP:GNG we need more than casual mentions and appearances in indexes/directories to establish notability). The article, as it stands has next to no useful information. For example, I couldn't even figure out what the company does without searching the web. Daß Wölf 01:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete unnotable. . . Mean as custard (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with speedy delete. I requested such under A7 / G11; let's see if it takes. Completely promotional and non notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete non notable. artspam. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom, non notable company, fails GNG, references fail WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:19, 9 January 2018 (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.