Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamerlane Global Services

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tamerlane Global Services

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

Fails WP:ORG Darkness Shines (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't see any WP:RS to establish the subject's notability. --Artene50 (talk) 09:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references range from directory listing, to local speaking announcement, to mention in a newspaper article about a port, to their IT supplier announcing the beta of their commissioned portal, but nothing individually or in sum that looks strong enough for WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 21:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm seeing the same things that AllyD found. I also checked with Bloomberg's investing.businessweek.com, who has business reports on 360,000 companies, but not Tamerlane. There is no way to separate the material in this article from puffery. The company is so new that this is not entirely surprising. Dun and Bradstreet Credibility Corp only has the address and phone number. Unscintillating (talk) 21:32, 12 August 2012 (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.