Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tsunami solutions

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tsunami solutions

[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)

I put this up as a PROD which was contested. The original author (and somebody possibly associated with them, who has only edited this page and the original author's sandbox) added additional references. However it still appears to firmly fail WP:GNG and WP:CORP. The independent sources are largely references in passing, covering the "lone worker" industry generally and mentioning this company as one of several vendors. The OHSCanada reference appears to be a press release. There simply don't appear to be adequate sources available to get this to encyclopedic notability. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NCORP. Not to be confused with this one. There's nothing that comes close to WP:ORGCRIT.--CNMall41 (talk) 05:45, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article cites several sources, but none of them are in depth nor signficant enough to meet WP:NCORP; indeed, the vast majority concern an unrelated piece of Canadian legislation.--SamHolt6 (talk) 06:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A nice middle to small company with no notability, Wikipedia is not a phonebook. And as above. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 07:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
Delete - Does not meet notability criteria, poor sources. Spyder212 (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a small BC software company with 100 buyers is unlikely to meet notability requirements. In this case, per the nominator, it didn't do so. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple independent sources cite Tsunami as one of the top three suppliers of lone worker monitoring in Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G4mb10r (talk • contribs) 01:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, G4mb10r. You seem to have only edited this page and no others. That is a little odd, what is up? Also best to defend the page using Wikipedia's rules on notability (WP:GNG and WP:CORP). (Dushan Jugum (talk) 02:44, 24 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.