Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unitask

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. Insufficient substantial coverage to comply with the notability guidelines for companies. The sources presented are weak and composed primarily of press releases. ~ mazca ^talk 00:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unitask

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

WP:CORP article supported only from press releases created by the same account that created all the WP:ARTSPAM at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dragon_View_(software). Pcap ping 16:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC) Pcap ping 16:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 16:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 16:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of any reliable sources, and Google News finds none. If I think it's a non-notable tech business, that's one thing; if Pcap thinks so too, the handwriting is on the wall. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems adequately cited and adequately notable. LotLE×talk 20:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it notable? Joe Chill (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The refs are misleading. The last one for instance claims to be Reuters, but it's just [1] a press release, not an actual Reuters story. Pcap ping 20:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but with the understanding that the article needs citations from reputable media sources, like this page from BusinessWeek: http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=22685213 . Historymike (talk) 01:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That link is the definition of routine coverage. Just a very short profile and contact info. It's not even a news story. Pcap ping 02:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources provided. Miami33139 (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2010 (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.