Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quikly

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quikly

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

Has received some coverage, but the depth of coverage does not appear to be enough to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I created this article when my wife ran across the service, and I wanted to learn more. Once I did the research, it seemed squarely within the concept of WP to share what I learned.

As a consumer, I find the ability to turn up some info on the company to be worthwhile; as a marketing professional, I was interested in the concept they were trying. As a semi-inclusionist, I'm not sure what the benefit is in deleting the article.--NapoliRoma (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. Also advertorial fails WP:SPIP. Wikipedia is not a substitute for a corporate web page, nor is it a platform for advertising. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c)  21:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The quick Google scan comes up with things that look promising, but are not -- many are interviews, promote Quikly, or in one occasion, written by the CEO himself. My name continues to not be dave (talk) 17:29, 12 October 2017 (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.