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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Agent Focus

Agent Focus (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Notability - reads like an advert Newusers112 ( talk) 06:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete and I myself planned to PROD, nothing at all actually convincing and that's not surprising for a 6-year-old company, searches are currently not finding better. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Article doesn't even make a claim of any notability. Nick-D ( talk) 11:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Possibly provides high quality products, but no indication this meets WP:CORP. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 10:25, 10 August 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.