Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rangoon Point

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. Sam Walton (talk) 12:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rangoon Point

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

This article should be deleted because no significant coverage is available in independent reliable sources, per WP:GNG. The claims of historical significance made in the article are completely spurious. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of the above IP editor. I'll reserve any comment of my own for a later date. --Finngall ^talk 22:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 22:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 22:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted as it has reliable sources from places such as https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/q-to-r-signed-pledges-armed-forces-corporate-covenant This is a government scheme to boost relations between business and the Armed Forces. The company this article is about is also mentioned on blogs which are referenced in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baskervilleoldface65 (talk • contribs) 22:28, December 2, 2016 (UTC)

All that source does is to say that this company signed a pledge. I could also sign that pledge on behalf of a charity of which I am a trustee, but that wouldn't make me or it notable. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 23:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sources in that article seem to be two types: References to it having signed a pledge, or a primary source (their own website). This looks like a publicity drive. Doesn't look notable. Tarl N. (discuss) 00:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 00:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- largely self-cited spam with no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Oops! Didn't realise I hadn't posted as nominator. Fails WP:GNG with no indication of significance. Seems to be self promotional. TheMagikCow (talk) 11:29, 11 December 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.