Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corporation Service Company

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 no consensus. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corporation Service Company

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

Article fails WP:CORP, specifically WP:CORPDEPTH. The article appears to be a thinly veiled PR piece and the secondary sources are mere mentions of the company. The company did win some New York Law Journal reader awards, but those don't seem to be notable. In searching for sources, I've found plenty of mentions and lists, and the company has published a prolific amount, but I haven't found any reliable, third-party sources about the company itself. EBstrunk18 (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This company is a longtime international presence in the corporate service business, well known in the world of corporate law, at least. Some legitimate sources are cited here, although I don't have full-text access to all of them. I suppose that there are some types of companies that are insufficiently documented to support articles even about the dominant players. But, with due regard for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it's still fair to note that we also have an article (with even less sourcing) for their longtime competitor CT Corporation. I acknowledge the nominator's concerns, but in light of all the factors, I'd prefer to see this article kept and stripped of any excessively promotional content. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well known enough in its field; as long as we cut out the cruft and spam. Bearian (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:28, 6 July 2014 (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.