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. Tone 20:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gkkworks[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Absolutely terrible primary or PR-like sources and utterly non-notable firm. No reliable, independent sources can be found that establish its notability; only passing mentions in gutter journalism sites. The creator has a problematic history of creating other such articles like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Imperial 3, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discovery Offices, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SSA Architects. This one, like all of them, fails WP:GNG, fails WP:ORG completely and ridiculously. MaysinFourty (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Spiderone 22:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, PR --Devokewater@ 21:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 13:13, 15 August 2020 (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.