Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CPA 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CPA Global

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

It should be deleted because it is a self promotion article on behalf of, or for, or by CPA Global.

I quote the following from wikipedia terms & conditions:

Self-promotion and indiscriminate publicity Shortcut: WP:SPIP

Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, paid material, autobiography, and product placement are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.

A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content). An article about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (e.g. band, club, company,Italic text etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works. This criterion does not apply to species of animals, only to individual animal(s). The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion Matt1665 (talk) 01:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cat=O

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. The text is irredeemably non-neutral, promotional, and shot through with vague buzzwords to the point of meaninglessness: a Knowledge Process Outsourcing (KPO) and Legal Process Outsourcing (LPO) firm, providing research, analytics and legal support services. When the text is this bad, notability is a side issue. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an advertisement. Miami33139 (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- There might be a decent short article that could be written about CPA Global if notability could be shown, but this isn't it. Also, the History section is a thinly-disguised copyvio from [1]. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 02:04, 6 August 2010 (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.