Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tile Factory Outlet

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. Davewild (talk) 06:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tile Factory Outlet

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

Potentially non-notable company I dream of horses (T) @ 04:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A firm going about its business but no evidence of notability provided or found. (Searches turn up multiple false matches on similarly named businesses in the same field across the world.) AllyD (talk) 06:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - without the vague, unsourced claim that it is "one of the biggest" this would no doubt be a speedy deletion candidate. This is a very recently established retail shed and I can't see any way it could meet WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The entire article is unsourced and therefore all of the page's content needs to be trimmed, regardless of notability. CorporateM (Talk) 19:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My searches found nothing to suggest this is notable. SwisterTwister talk 00:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:COMPANY says in part, "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization.". Pretty clearly a delete unless good secondary sources can be produced. (As for any company that size). Adpete (talk) 04:42, 15 June 2015 (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.