Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MMGY Global

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. Jenks24 (talk) 13:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MMGY Global

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

Certainly unacceptable current version and it's questionable whether this can be better notable, improvable and acceptable as the best I found was this and this. SwisterTwister talk 23:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can find various pieces of press coverage of deals (one now added into the article as a basic reference) and the firm's publicity of their annual "Portrait of American Travelers", but I am seeing nothing substantial about the firm which would meet WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 12:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources required. Here's the second [1]. ~Kvng (talk) 15:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources is indeed required. Thefirst is a local journal article about a local business, which is totally indscriminate. The new one is a press release in a trade magazine. Neither count. And if they did, 2 does not automatically mean multiple; it depends on the quality of the sources & the substantiality of the coverage. . DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 16 November 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.