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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clutch Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-notable outsourcing company. Yahoo/Bing search turned up mostly press releases. Blueboy96 20:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:N, WP:NPOV, and WP:IRS. EW_ikist^Talk 21:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. Orphaned for six months and backed up only by primary sources. Based on that, it fails verifiability and notability guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Also seems to be written in promoting style (CSD G11 should have happened? Unambiguous advertising?). VasuVR (talk, contribs) 06:00, 16 January 2011 (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.