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. Killiondude (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NVA Holdings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The only person who has ever taken an interest in this article is the COI creator. It was so promotional. So badly written.
There are so many flaws and reasons why this article was abysmal and after hacking through it, all I'm left with is a shell.
Upon closer inspection, a complete lack of GNG.
The TV and film arm had one show that had some interest and coverage, but it's the show and not the company behind it that gets the notability.
The record label fared much worse, claiming to be behind a top 10 hit but with no support (and much proof against). With 22 facebook likes, 2 home-made CDs, no charting releases and now dissolved, there's nothing to it.
The umbrella company's facebook page does have a considerable following (over 34,000 likes) but the interaction with posts is roughly equivalent to what you'd expect when the likes come from a like farm.
Searches on NVA render little more than a self-released PR stunt to Reuters (about a Jay Z - Ashley Cole deal that bore no fruit) and conventional info linked to a corporate entity (companies house listings etc).
This is the tip of the PR editing iceberg I've uncovered but even taking that out of the equation, i think there's a massive gap between even the most liberal application of GNG and this company's coverage. Rayman60 (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:46, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:46, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:46, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH for the reason that the significant coverage is either not reliable or not independent and the independent coverage is not actually about them at all. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Six refs amount to 2 sentences of coverage. Szzuk (talk) 15:37, 31 March 2018 (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.