Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Task Force Tips (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. It appears the tightening of NCORP suggests this topic no longer meets notability guidelines. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Task Force Tips (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)

The previous discussion closed without consensus and I think it's time to revisit this. After reading through the previous discussion and performing my own WP:BEFORE searches I'm not convinced that coverage other than run-of-the-mill, day-to-day stuff exists. The sources in the previous discussion do not appear to make this subject worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is not the place to write articles that say "Here is a company. This is what it does" and there's nothing out there to flesh out this article into anything more. The company simply isn't notable enough to pass the GNG threshold. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep I will reassert my 2017 argument: "there are a lot of search results that could be used to source a decent article" The following three examples are again from 2017:
  • For starters, this says what the company does
  • here is something about the history of their production process.
  • here is something about their modern production process.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment--I don't have sufficient enthusiasm to conduct a search of sources or a review of the ones mentioned above but it might be prudential to remind discussants that the standards of NCORP sourcing has been tightened by quite a few notches, in the very recent past.Best, ~ Winged Blades^Godric 17:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: too minor to have garnered significant coverage. Does not meet WP:NCORP & no improvement since the last nom. It's been plenty of chances, time to let this article go. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: trivial in coverage and does not meet WP:CORP standard for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 15:22, 13 May 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.