Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamar.com (2nd nomination)

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. joe decker ^talk 02:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tamar.com

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

Unfortunately because of that first AfD, it seems we have to go through AfD again so here are....My searches simply found nothing better and the current article is simply not convincing enough of better notability and improvement. FWIW, my original PROD message was "Perhaps not speedy material per se, but my searches simply found nothing better and the current article is not convincing of solid notability.". Notifying past taggers and also otherwise tag users TheRedPenOfDoom, Maproom and Northamerica1000. SwisterTwister talk 07:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My searches are not turning up evidence that this is more than a Marketing/SEO firm going about its business. No encyclopaedic notability; fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in the article about notability. I would not have accepted as AFC, and see no reason to keep it, and I speak as an official member of the non-deletionist movement. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searching for Tamar and the founder reveals no independent, reliable sources. Two articles cited as being in The Times are behind a paywall so I can't access them. --Sbwoodside (talk) 05:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AllyD _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 20:35, 5 December 2015 (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.