Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Convenience Valet

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. Bishonen | talk 20:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience Valet

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

fails WP:CORP Jytdog (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests a better applicably notable article. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All I see is this acquisition story and a few hires in the CSPnet.com source.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG, and clearly does not pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:04, 18 February 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.