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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Embrun Forestry Corporation[edit]

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

Speedy delete declined (reason: "it's just a stub article" - didn't know A7 doesn't apply in that case) so figured I'd nominate here instead. Article has been tagged as unreferenced since June 2008, and no references have been provided. Just because the company existed in the 19th century does not mean it is notable, and I can't tell if it actually existed because of the lack of sources. Nothing turned up when I searched myself. Fails notability guidelines. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches noticeably found nothing better. Notifying tagger Rosiestep. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)*[reply]
Delete as I've done an extensive search and can't find any mention of it. The only thing I could find is this 1950 snippet ("Eugene D'Aoust & Sons, Embrun, Ontario, who operate a general store, warehouse and lumber yard, lost $6,000 in negotiable bonds and $4,000 cash ...") but it doesn't establish the existence of the Embrun Forestry Corporation. Unfortunately, the article creator has not been active since 2006 so we can't check with him. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:36, 6 December 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.