The result was no consensus. The main problem here is a lack of engagement. Gargleafg has provides multiple sources which he claims establish notability; the particular sources he has raised have not been meaningfully discussed beyond "the article doesn't pass WP:NCORP/WP:GNG", making it difficult to establish any consensus regarding the validity/reliability/usefulness of these sources. I suggest that if this article is re-nominated in a few months, voters pay particular attention to the specific sources provided. ItsZippy ( talk • contributions) 14:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Non-notable company. Article reads like an ad. No references, other than two external links to the company's own website. A google search comes up with no reliable sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
*Delete. My dog ate my encyclopedia article. --
RoySmith
(talk) 12:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)Oh, my, this has been running so long, I forgot I started it! I didn't intend to double-dip. --
RoySmith
(talk)
21:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. The main problem here is a lack of engagement. Gargleafg has provides multiple sources which he claims establish notability; the particular sources he has raised have not been meaningfully discussed beyond "the article doesn't pass WP:NCORP/WP:GNG", making it difficult to establish any consensus regarding the validity/reliability/usefulness of these sources. I suggest that if this article is re-nominated in a few months, voters pay particular attention to the specific sources provided. ItsZippy ( talk • contributions) 14:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Non-notable company. Article reads like an ad. No references, other than two external links to the company's own website. A google search comes up with no reliable sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
*Delete. My dog ate my encyclopedia article. --
RoySmith
(talk) 12:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)Oh, my, this has been running so long, I forgot I started it! I didn't intend to double-dip. --
RoySmith
(talk)
21:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)