- 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Eview 360
- Eview 360 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable. Blatant Promotions. Reads like a company brochure. Corporate Spam. Light2021 ( talk) 17:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete – lacks notability, and other than a few sources that mention its introduction and growth over 10 years ago, the company lacks lasting coverage. The content in the article lists some of the company's tools, marketing strategies, and customers, but no detail on what they are or what they mean. A search for more information in the usual places turned up nothing significant. Recommending deletion. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 19:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete -- fails WP:CORPDEPTH; coverage that I'm seeing is PR-driven and not independent of the subject. K.e.coffman ( talk) 17:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Eview 360
- Eview 360 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable. Blatant Promotions. Reads like a company brochure. Corporate Spam. Light2021 ( talk) 17:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete – lacks notability, and other than a few sources that mention its introduction and growth over 10 years ago, the company lacks lasting coverage. The content in the article lists some of the company's tools, marketing strategies, and customers, but no detail on what they are or what they mean. A search for more information in the usual places turned up nothing significant. Recommending deletion. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 19:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete -- fails WP:CORPDEPTH; coverage that I'm seeing is PR-driven and not independent of the subject. K.e.coffman ( talk) 17:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
- 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.