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. Swarm ♠ 04:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rackinthecases[edit]

Rackinthecases (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)

Multiple issues including fails WP:CORPDEPTH, overly promotional, lack of RS. Legacypac (talk) 06:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 06:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 06:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nearly even speedy material, nothing else currently convincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:23, 4 February 2016 (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.