Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cardno

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. If anyone wants the article userfied to improve / rewrite it, let me know. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cardno (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)

This page is a straight-up copy-and-paste PR release. It's been tagged as such for 5 years. Given the lack of improvement, it is time to put it out of its misery. Edgar Vekilnik, Jr. (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete even speedy I reckon. Blatant promo. At best WP:TNT. I have not gone looking but it would not surprise if was also copyvio. Aoziwe (talk) 11:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now that the article has been fixed re blatant policy problems I am changing to keep on the basis of sufficient WP:NEXIST across (modern) multiple reliable secondary sources over a number of years to support WP:GNG, not always flattering to the company by the way. The article still needs a lot of work but there are IRSS to support an improved article. Aoziwe (talk) 11:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS I have not checked their content but there are many dozens, possibly even hundreds, of secondary source references to this company and-or its founders archived here. Aoziwe (talk) 11:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the article to an earlier revision, before it was overwritten with promo which was indeed a copyvio of https://www.cardno.com/about-us/who-we-are/our-history/. G11 probably doesn't apply anymore. I've also request revision deletion.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 01:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have WP:REVDEL-d the obvious WP:COPYVIO insertion of text from https://www.cardno.com/about-us/who-we-are/our-history. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Probably passes WP:NCORP, due to significant coverage here, here, here here, and here. Due to the company going back to World War II, there's probably a lot more that's just buried behind a bunch of unreliable junk because Google's terrible at filtering by how reliable a source is. As mentioned above, I've removed the copyvio/promotional material by reverting to an earlier revision, and I'm doing some more cleanup.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 12:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• TNT it. PR page owned by spammers, history is still full of copy paste spam. Get rid of it all and let someone independent start over. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Duffbeerforme. We shouldn't be asked to spend time rescuing articles created by COI editors (who are probably being paid for their work). Delete and let someone else write a proper encyclopaedia article. SpinningSpark 18:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per duffbeerforme, SpinningSpark, and WP:BOGOF. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:19, 5 November 2018 (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.