Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Data Products

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

World Data Products (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)

Sources nor article itself really establish any non-routine coverage, nor notability for this organization at all. A search for sources brings up, interestingly, a press release dated today regarding a seemingly routine acquisition and almost nothing else. Boogerpatrol (talk) 21:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Only real claim of notability is ranking "376 in CRN’s 2010 VAR 500". 209.255.230.32 (talk) 12:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - My first Google News search (pretty much only pages 1 and 2) found some news coverage along with PR and, sadly, it seems the PR outweighs the news coverage. There's a local article, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, but it only seems to mention a new CEO. It does seem the CRN rankings are the most significant attention this company has received. A search for UNEDA membership provided another processor.com link (which mentions them twice) and another different search provided a second processor.com link here (supports the Better Business Bureau membership, which wouldn't help this article much). In recent years, the company seems to have really not gotten much attention even with PR (that October 31, 2013 PR seems to be the most recent since 2011). Final searches did not provide anything. No prejudice towards a future article. SwisterTwister talk 19:43, 4 November 2013 (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.