Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FreeLinc

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. MBisanz ^talk 05:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FreeLinc

No independent, 3rd party refs attesting to notability, no evidence that this company has encyclopedic notability, or that it meets WP:CORP. Appears to have been created by someone connected to that company. AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The company has won a few minor awards, but lack of independent reliable source coverage means it fails WP:CORP. Baileypalblue (talk) 00:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, appears to be an advertisement page. Letsdrinktea (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Weak Delete-The sources still don't seem to be independent and notablility is in question. Letsdrinktea (talk) 02:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added this reference from Urgent Communications, a reliable source. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That source is a rehashed press release from a non-RS. Bongo matic 01:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent Communications Magazine might be a reliable source, but this article never appeared in print, and never went through the associated editorial process, which is a key to establishing reliability. Unfortunately, as User:Bongomatic says, it looks like one of the many reprinted company PR releases available on the internet. Baileypalblue (talk) 04:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable company that has yet to receive significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Bongo matic 01:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:10, 22 February 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.