Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EasyRide application

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EasyRide application

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

per WP:CORPDEPTH Rahul^{Text me} 05:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It does not have a single source; compliance with WP:N is nonexistent. —Codename Lisa (talk) 17:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with nom. Not-notable. Also note that article created by SPA probably with COI. MB 04:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's hardly anything I could find about it. Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly promotional page with no independent RS, and none to be found. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by all means, and I meant to comment sooner, none of this is anything else but PR, in that goes to specifics from interviewed information, company and financing activities, and to finish it: no actual sources. This is PR and that alone, not at all close to encyclopedia materials. SwisterTwister talk 20:01, 26 September 2016 (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.