Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fraser Trebilcock

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. ✗plicit 03:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fraser Trebilcock

[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)

Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 02:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Companies, and Michigan. Skynxnex (talk) 02:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:NOTADVERT. Blatantly created by User:Frasermarketing which was blocked indef May 20, 2014. For some reason the article was not deleted. — Maile (talk) 02:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NCORP based on referencing not meeting WP:ORGCRIT. I cannot find anything that could be used to establish notability for this firm. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wouldn't the high ranking make them notable?

Panther999 (talk) 13:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it would not. Same way a company isn't notable for simply being publicly traded or being list on Inc. 5000. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2023 (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.