Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intrax

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. Sandstein 18:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Intrax

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

Nonnotable. Tagged for a year, no improvement Staszek Lem (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply no improvement and although my searches found results at Books, News and highbeam, there's nothing for a better article yet. Pinging Trivialist and Dragons flight. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Some stuff there, but mostly PR type stuff or brief mentions. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete It's not really the lack of notability that's the issue here, but that a timeline and a very brief non-description just aren't enough for an article. With quite awhile having passed, it seems safe to delete.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2015 (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.