Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ProLink

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 speedy deleted. by Sir Sputnik under G5. (non-admin closure) ——SerialNumber54129 17:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ProLink

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable company. There is a resounding lack of persistent and in-depth coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources—from either news outlets or literature—to demonstrate even the most basic compliance with WP:NORG. ——SerialNumber54129 12:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This company is popular all over the world and the company is reaching its peak so I chose the title. The source arenot much in that article and I think other mentions should be added!!NotTfue123 (Talk) 12:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 12:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 12:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 12:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 12:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of how this company meets WP:CORP notability criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article creator, who commented above, has been confirmed as a sock of Gaurav456 and checkuser blocked. Accordingly, and in view of this article amounting to little more than spam, I've tagged it G5 as a time time- and resources-saving exercise. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 17:09, 9 April 2019 (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.