Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitrais

Mitrais

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

Article about company which does not prove to be notable all references are press releases, primary sources or listings which do nothing to establish notability. Google search here brings up zero hits to help establish any sort of coverage. This article fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing to suggest solid notability and the my first searches found this (News) and Books. The current sources aren't encouraging either to suggest there are better sources. SwisterTwister talk 22:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I have changed the content of the page with more independent references. Thank you for pointing it out to me. I hope this will be sufficient to make the page independent. Sansekerta (talk) 09:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Sansekerta[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In its current form it looks well sourced and certainly looks more notable than over half of the random articles one might come across from clicking "random article", so I'd say keep. --LyThienDao1984 (talk) 06:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (1)(11) are primary sources. (7)(8)(9) are just passing mentions. The Forrester Research source (2=6) asks for a two-thousand dollar pay wall, and lack of mention of the company name in the abstract propels me to assume that it won't be much substantial than passing mentions. Leaving (3)(4=10)(5) being rather routinal reports of expansion in Asia-Pacific circles. My own searches in GNews turns out predominantly the Latvian-language use of the word wikt:mitrais (=humid/wet) 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 08:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]