Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D+H

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. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

D+H

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

Despite being around for many years, this article is lacking in evidence of notability. Two of the refs show that it exists, two are obituaries for one of its founders and the remaining two are simply business reports of take-over deals which make no other comment that would support notability. This appears to be a company that likes to stay under the radar, but that is of little help in establishing notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Davis + Hendersen was the defacto cheque printer in Canada. Much like John H. Harland Company (Now Harland Clarke) in the states. I've updated the outdated Davis + Hendersen (they are now go by "D+H" not Davis + Hendersen) content to reflect the most recent information. I don't understand the comment the evidence of notability? Is this a Wikipedia term to identify that the page is not worthy? - PikaTimPedia

The key criterion for retaining pages on Wikipedia is that they are notable. Notability in general is defined here and has a special and specific meaning in Wikipedia. Please read the guidance which should help explain what is needed to demonstrate notability. In essence , it requires robust, independent sources discussing the company which are not derived from press releases and which are not simply passing mentions as are the current refs. Hope that this helps. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the coverage that is available doesn't pass WP:CORPDEPTH in my opinion. shoy (reactions) 15:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking independece in in-depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as entirely PR and nothing at all consisting of substance for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- for a long-standing company it's indeed surprising that no in-depth sources are available. But, per available sources, the subject does not meet CORPDEPTH and GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:18, 28 August 2016 (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.