Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disaster Kleenup International

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 speedy deleted by User:Jimfbleak per CSD G11. (Non-administrator discussion closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disaster Kleenup International

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

Non-notable small company with little third-party coverage. Having gone through the refs the majority were either dead links or didn't even mention the company, found one article about it here BigPimpinBrah (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep found 100 articles about it or its officials in google news. While some are poor, quality there is multiple non-trivial sources about it. SalHamton (talk) 22:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you identify some of those sources that are not poor? On a quick run-through of the results of a Google News archive search I can only see press releases and the like. As an aside, because I understand that this not a policy-based argument, I find it very difficult to take seriously any company that has such a childish misspelling in its name. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Appears to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unredeemable WP:ADVERT. So ridiculously over the top that it needs TNT. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:34, 13 April 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.