Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gleeds
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Gleeds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable consulting company. The only sources appear to be trade publications, and all of the reporting appears to be run-of-the-mill. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, United Kingdom, and England. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Would expect to find more sources but there's just not a lot out there. Lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Article in present state is overly promotional and unencyclopedic with listing of office locations etc. AusLondonder (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)