Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ESR Technology

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 no consensus. Requires separate discussions. We can't establish consensus for these topics as a group here. Sandstein 19:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ESR Technology

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

My searches found nothing good enough to suggest better improvement with the best links here and here. *NOTE: I'm also including a few other articles:

Current Communications Group (best search results I found are here, here and here)
ORS Direct (best results I found were here)
Alexander Autographs (best results I found were here, here, here and here).

There's simply nothing to suggest better improvement to any of these and with Alexander Autographs, all current news links are passing and minor mentions and although its items may be admirable and interesting there's no better coverage of Alexander Autographs themselves. I'm pinging involved users C.Fred and Gyrofrog (Alexander Autographs), Trivialist, Jayron32 and Eastmain and Cornellrockey (ORS Direct) and author Gary (Current Communications Group) SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Alexander Autographs (edit talk links history). I had suspected this was a promotional effort; see article's talk page. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ESR Technology which I suspect to be a significant participant in the British nuclear industry. Delete the rest, which look thoroughly NN. I think we should deplore multiple nominations of unrelated subjects. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peterkingiron I favored this rather than making several nominations that would risk "no consensus" to no attention at all, although not explicitly related, I consider these to be unimprovable (and FWIW, it gives a chance for the viewer to look at other company noms). I tried to make this nomination as simple as possible. Also, suspicion of being a significant participant may be good but it will not improve the article's current state. SwisterTwister talk 01:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As far as I can tell there's no good connection between these four companies, so why WP:BUNDLE, SwisterTwister? This to me looks pretty much as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawrence Dial that DGG closed on the note "as a technical no-consensus, because its impossible to try to form a proper consensus about 5 disparate people in one nomination. Please renominate separately." -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 03:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 08:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have to agree that this should be separated. To nominate in a group like this makes the arguments inconclusive. - Pmedema (talk) 13:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:43, 6 October 2015 (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.