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. Sandstein 23:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)reply
A promotional artcle for a non notable company. Fails
WP:NORG and
WP:ORGDEPTH. All references are primary sources. Hagennos❯❯❯Talk 02:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep the company has received significant coverage in third party sources and it meets
WP:NORG. Content was likely written by an undisclosed COI editor and needs to be toned down to maintain a neutral tone however.
Cait.123 (
talk) 17:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment Could you please provide some instances where the coverage is not sourced to the company itself (like interviews or viewpoints form Company officials). A
WP:BEFORE could not find anything. --Hagennos❯❯❯Talk 05:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete--Typical spam/PR sourcing.Nothing semblant to independent coverage.
~ Winged BladesGodric 06:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete -- fails
WP:CORPDEPTH /
WP:NCORP and in general promotional 'cruft. Nothing close to meeting notability guidelines for corporations.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 03:03, 21 February 2018 (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.