- 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. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 23:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
WorkRamp
- WorkRamp ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:GNG. giso6150 ( talk) 05:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: A WP:SPA article on a recently-started firm, sourced only to its own website and Linkedin profile. Nor are Highbeam and Google searches identifying any better sources. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD ( talk) 11:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: Obvious WP:Promo is obvious. Also: No notability whatsoever. -- Hybris1984 ( talk) 19:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as clearly a newly founded company with no further convincing sources. SwisterTwister talk 07:23, 24 February 2016 (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. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 23:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
WorkRamp
- WorkRamp ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:GNG. giso6150 ( talk) 05:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: A WP:SPA article on a recently-started firm, sourced only to its own website and Linkedin profile. Nor are Highbeam and Google searches identifying any better sources. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD ( talk) 11:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: Obvious WP:Promo is obvious. Also: No notability whatsoever. -- Hybris1984 ( talk) 19:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as clearly a newly founded company with no further convincing sources. SwisterTwister talk 07:23, 24 February 2016 (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.