Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AMAC Accessibility

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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:46, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AMAC Accessibility (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

no evidence for notability-- for earlier versions, see [1]. once the promotionalism has been removed, there's nothing left. DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as per DGG's rationale. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- small company ("AMAC recently expanded to 50 employees and has a growing international clientele") and no indications of notability or significance. Article is advertorially toned and appears to exist to promote the business. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per source searches, does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:06, 5 August 2017 (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.