- 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. Killiondude ( talk) 06:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- Nexthink ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No notable company, with refs that are PR or notices or both, as is usual with paid editing. Editor did not initially declare. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 00:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 00:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 00:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete sources are just PR or not significant coverage, and so not notable enough. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 00:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as corporate spam on a nn private company just going about its business. Sources are WP:SPIP and do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman ( talk) 18:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete, per above; Promo article that does not show notability. Kierzek ( talk) 18:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with above, corporate spam, fails WP:SPIP. References fails the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing ++ 13:05, 2 January 2018 (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. Killiondude ( talk) 06:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- Nexthink ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No notable company, with refs that are PR or notices or both, as is usual with paid editing. Editor did not initially declare. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 00:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 00:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 00:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete sources are just PR or not significant coverage, and so not notable enough. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 00:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as corporate spam on a nn private company just going about its business. Sources are WP:SPIP and do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman ( talk) 18:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete, per above; Promo article that does not show notability. Kierzek ( talk) 18:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with above, corporate spam, fails WP:SPIP. References fails the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing ++ 13:05, 2 January 2018 (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.