Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Business Initiative Directions

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 keep as restored; nominator also withdrew objections based on this change. bd2412 T 15:55, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Business Initiative Directions

Business Initiative Directions (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)

No evidence of notabilty. Cites five sources: four are the company's own web site, one is a blank page. Maproom (talk) 07:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Have you seen this version? Philafrenzy (talk) 07:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Philafrenzy, for pointing that out. The article was once well-referenced, mainly to reliable sources pointing out that the business is a scam. But all the independent references have been removed, leaving the current worthless article. Maybe better to restore it to that version? Maproom (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - Does not pass WP:GNG. Dreadful sourcing. Argument can be made for speedily deleting this. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• Keep - Just restored the article to its original. That new version was certainly delete worthy, but fortunately it was only active for about 48hrs. I guess the nom didn't notice what happened but they knew at one time in the past. -- GreenC 21:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Right. I would like to withdraw my nomination, now that it's been reverted to a better-referenced state. Maproom (talk) 23:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Based on current version. Still needs more sources however. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Thanks to GreenC restoring it to the last good version, it once again passes WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 23:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• Delete, the refs don't support notability, there appears to have been a lot of edit warring over the article so I've looked at the latest and 'best' version. Szzuk (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

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.