Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citation Technologies

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. Kurykh (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Technologies

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

fails WP:CORP. most of the sources provided are press releases. And only 2 gnews hits. Also nominating its product for similar reasons:

CyberRegs

LibStar (talk) 15:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 16:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 16:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete per nom. There simply isn't the sort of coverage we require -- independent of press release type items -- and that we would expect for a truly notable company. Same issue with the product,
talk) 17:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 17:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete Alas, the company has been around long enough that an article might be able to be written that meets our criteria. However, this one is not it. Anything that talks about solutions and platforms, when the company appears to deal with neither, and has a litany of un-expanded acronyms, signals to me it was written by marketing. W Nowicki (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2017 (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.