Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cashflow INSITE
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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. The article looks like advertising and there is no real evidence of notability Fences&Windows 21:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cashflow INSITE
- Cashflow INSITE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
In my opinion, this article should be deleted as it fails to meet Wikipedia's notability standard for companies and organizations,
WP:SPS. So, only one of five references and external links is a reliable, second-party source. Therefore, this article does not meet WP:COMPANY, as it has not "been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources". Thus, this article should be deleted. Laurinavicius (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
- Delete, as nominator. Laurinavicius (talk) 00:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Has one decent ref, but still lacks notability, and is spam. Angryapathy (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The coverage by WP:NOTE is to exclude the yellow pages as a reference, not to exclude this sort of reference. - Eastmain (talk) 14:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable criterion for speedy deletion without further need for debate, and is so for a reason; but the Investment News website, even if it were widely read, would appear to be chiefly about other products and businesses. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Very marketroid and fails the plural sources part of the GNG. --Cybercobra (talk) 15:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not even so much as a claim of notability, much less one backed up by reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete And its ]
- 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.