Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Delivery

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. MBisanz ^talk 12:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Delivery

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

To state the obvious, the sources simply consist of trivial and unconvincing information, including noticeably from the company itself, which is clearly not an independent source, the history suggests itself it is in fact an advertisement, quite likely company-motivated, and my own searches unsurprisingly found nothing better. Next, it's unsurprising to see this was accepted in a time when no one would carefully examine and consider these controversial subjects and Drafts. Now we are, and with WP:SPAM and WP:NOT (policies), they can easily be removed, especially since we're not a random business listing and PR webhost, regardless of anything anyone could say otherwise. SwisterTwister talk 19:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The book source below provides independent, significant coverage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pitt, L.F.; Nel, D. (2001) South African Marketing Cases for Decision Makers. Juta. 978-0-7021-5552-9. pp. 101–109. (subscription required)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Joyous! | Talk 00:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The SA sources are advertorials, the US ones mere notices. Being used as one of the many instances in a casebook does not show notability DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 5 December 2016 (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.