Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer Troubleshooters

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Troubleshooters

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

not notable firm; all of the notices and minor awards are routine for any business of this sort. A concentration of really minor awards and promotional articles is characteristic of an attempt to write a promotional article about a minor company. In this case, I noticed not just that the awards are minor, but the standing in the award lists are quite low. Nobody writing about a truly notable company would bother including such material. Including it always means that there is simply nothing betterSome of the articles like this are done by paid editors; some by good-faith editors copying what the paid editors do, because they think it's what we want here. It's time to remove the bad examples. DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete as nom says the awards are all minor. The coverage merely confirms facts about the company rather than indepth to meet WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 13:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete per DGG and LibStar. Number 282 on a nonnotable list is not evidence whoever wrote this had better evidence of notability to hand. Basic WP:BEFORE shows me press releases and passing mentions - David Gerard (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There's no evidence of notability, and as DGG notes its content is highly characteristic of a promotional article. Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 21 October 2016 (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.