Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GTI specialist publishers

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. slakr^\ talk / 07:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GTI specialist publishers

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to ~~GTI Group~~ Group GTI which would have enough RS refs to pass WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now can you move without evidence it is the same.- Altenmann >t 05:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, excuse me? The links in the article are enough evidence. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:03, 6 February 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete no evidence of notability. created by single-purpose account. must be vanity or ghostpedian. - Altenmann >t 05:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is part of GTI Media which is part of Group GTI which is a global corporation with divisions also in Asia, Germany, etc. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:31, 18 February 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, --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 18:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable company. Article has a few references, but none meet our reliable sources standard. -- RoySmith (talk) 05:09, 24 February 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.