Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Personal group

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. Please note that each editor is only allocated one bolded !vote per AFD, unless another of his or hers is stricken. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personal group

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

Fails WP:CORP, no secondary sources. Article was prodded last October - the creator defended it saying "give me at least another month to compile more interesting information about the company, after which you can make a decision" and has not touched the article since. McGeddon (talk) 08:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- It is not a good article, but I would suggest that all companies listed on LSE (though perhaps not subsidiary markets) are notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking reliable independent sources with in-depth coverage. If such sources get added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2013 (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) 03:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks substantial coverge, this it does not suffice Notability criteria. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 16:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it plausible that someone would type "Personal group" in the search box? And if someone does type "Personal group" in the search box, what are they actually looking for? (Odds are they aren't looking for a corporation).
I actually think Personal group should be a disambiguation page of some sort. The article about the Personal Group Company belongs in Personal Group (corporation) if it's not deleted.—S Marshall T/C 07:32, 19 August 2013 (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) 12:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the person who started this article cannot establish some bit of notability within a 24 hr period, then it's highly doubtful there is much verifiable data on this company beyond their own primary sources. Considering how easy it is these days to keep articles on non-notable subjects with a fleeting mention in a magazine or newspaper often sufficient for inclusionists to prevent such articles from deletion, there really isn't much excuse. It is ridiculously easy for any article at this point to survive AfD. So if not even a single notable source can be found to justify this article, doubtful there will be anything more in a month. Laval (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above discussion. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Still Keep, perhaps not under this name. As a Stock Exchange listed company, it ought to be notable, but the article should perhaps be renamed to Personal Group Holdings. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:25, 5 September 2013 (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.