Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TestLodge

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. ansh 666 19:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TestLodge

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

~~PROD removed by an anonymous user without comment. The concern was: "Fails WP:GNG, WP:NSOFT, lacks even a claim of significance." Rentier (talk) 10:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

The company's claim of significance is having received a single, non-notable, local award. Most of the sources are WP:SPIP, some are unreliable and some are self-published. There is no indication of reliable independent in-depth coverage demanded by WP:CORPDEPTH. Rentier (talk) 10:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete CorpDepth and GNG. Just mentions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA article on a company. The provided sources include local coverage, primary and passing mentions, sufficient to verify this as a firm going about its business, but neither these nor the non-notable award demonstrate encyclopaedic notability. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough reliable sources to pass GNG. ToThAc (talk) 17:19, 29 September 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.