Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 January 8

EFS Facilities Services Group (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

New credible sources have come to the fore from main independent news ~

https://theshillongtimes.com/2023/08/30/global-leader-efs-to-set-up-upskill-at-ustm-ceo-tariq-chauhan/

https://realty.economictimes.indiatimes.com/amp/news/industry/efs-facilities-services-to-invest-rs-300-crore-in-india-by-2020-acquire-3-firms/59219359

https://ddnews.gov.in/international/nsdci-and-efs-facilities-services-group-ink-mou-skilled-workforce-mobility

https://www.forbesmiddleeast.com/brandvoice/efs-facilities-services-group-1

https://www.khaleejtimes.com/corporate/dubai-top-companies-for-workers-honoured

https://www.gdnonline.com/Details/632838/EFS-Facilities-Services-wins-over-$46m-contracts- (120.89.74.94 (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC))[reply]

• None of those are new, all but one are patently unusable even at a glance, and the remaining source accepts payment in exchange for coverage. Plus, we just reviewed this in November. —Cryptic 06:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Time to resurrect WP:DEEPER, perhaps?—S Marshall T/C 08:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:DEEPER is still around :) Stifle (talk) 10:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, but can we restrict the filing of review requests to registered accounts who can at least be asked whether they have conflict of interest? Robert McClenon (talk) 09:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Submission of Draft subject to review (and knowing that reviewers may be inclined to ignore the draft rather than decline or reject it). Robert McClenon (talk) 09:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Was the title salted in November? Robert McClenon (talk) 09:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only at the EFS Facilities Services title. —Cryptic 09:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • So this is another form of the gaming of titles. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse should be a salted title, no new information. SportingFlyer T·C 21:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The closing was based on unanimous, well-reasoned views, and none of the newly presented sources establish notability. Owen× ☎ 00:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Properly deleted by consensus. Do not encourage drafting. It does not meet WP:CORP. It’s routine. It’s highly actively promotional. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. This isn't new information, per Cryptic.—Alalch E. 09:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and list at WP:DEEPER. Stifle (talk) 10:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per above. Clear consensus at the AFD. I have no objection to a recreation as a draft, but a draft based on the above references would stand no chance at WP:AFC. Frank Anchor 15:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]