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. Consensus to delete as not-notable (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blackquarter (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)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. I found no secondary sources on this company, just promotional ones. Bbb23 (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  —HueSatLum 21:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable website, no secondary sources on Google, News, etc., unreferenced. This also could be speedily delteted per {{db-web}} as a non-notable website. Note that "blackquarter" also seems to be a type of disease. —HueSatLum 22:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources for a web site launched this year. No assertion of notability, so arguably a speedy. -- Whpq (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2012 (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.