Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TechExcel Software
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 05:29, 5 February 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.Revision as of 05:29, 5 February 2022 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- 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, substantially identical to a previous page deleted through process; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TechExcel and also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DevPlan. Pages have been protected against re-creation as well. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- TechExcel Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Promotion for non-notable company, article created by single-purpose user. Haakon (talk) 15:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It may be worth noting that article about this company was deleted before. Haakon (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: How is a company determined to be Notable? I have added references to the company page. [User:punterberg|punterberg]] (talk) 10:34, 6 October 2009 (PDT)
- See WP:CORP. Haakon (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Does the article at http://triangle.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2009/08/03/smallb1.html not count towards " reliable, independent secondary sources."? punterberg talk
- It might (note that the coverage has to be "significant"). This source was added after nomination; we will see what consensus forms. Haakon (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have tried to clean up the page and add several more sources. punterberg (talk) 10:56, 6 October 2009 (PDT)
- It might (note that the coverage has to be "significant"). This source was added after nomination; we will see what consensus forms. Haakon (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Does the article at http://triangle.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2009/08/03/smallb1.html not count towards " reliable, independent secondary sources."? punterberg talk
- See WP:CORP. Haakon (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2009 (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.