Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Venari Resources

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 keep. clpo13_(talk) 19:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Venari Resources (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

does not meet the notability criteria Ekgoranson (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)— Ekgoranson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep it does, at least talk to the creator. ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete So the company wants it deleted because they don't have the time to use it for spamming and promotion? Not a valid reason. However, no evidence that they pass WP:GNG or WP:ORG, so delete. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now. It looks a little more respectable with the bare urls expanded. I've made a start. --Northernhenge (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep as per @Northernhenge:'s additions. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. $1 billion funding and a couple of oil discoveries seem significant enough to me. The Forbes citation^[1] is convincing, as is this one^[2]. And I agree with Joseph that staffing changes at the company shouldn't determine whether or not we retain the article. Meticulo (talk) 12:32, 18 January 2019 (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.