Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chelgate

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chelgate

Chelgate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Unsourced, reads like an advert - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 17:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 17:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: A PR article about a PR firm (with the only sourcing to their website!). Very meta. No sources found, other than a few mentions of items they've handled for various governments. Oaktree b (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, their name pops up in a book chapter on Crypto ponzi schemes (which are a thing now?) [1]. Still not seeing enough for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete blatant promo piece. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 12:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Searching online, there isn't much available outside of passing mentions of involvement in PR issues. Article is just an ad piece. -- Primium (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2023 (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.