Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evergreen Packaging

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. MelanieN (talk) 01:00, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evergreen Packaging

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

Not clear how this passes WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC) Theroadislong (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yep, a couple things like this local business story about tax breaks, but nothing substantial enough to meet WP:GNG. Reckston (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 07:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - privately held, not traded? Bearian (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also fails the primary test of organizational notability as coverage in secondary sources is brief, passing and insubstantial. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:48, 4 May 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.