Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TechFly: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 20:30, 9 March 2022

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TechFly

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

Fails WP:ORGSIG and appears to be self-promotional NottNott talk|contrib 15:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 08:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am not seeing any significant coverage in reliable independent sources. None at all, actually, which is surprising considering the weak assertions of notability made in the lead section, barely enough to escape speedy deletion WP:CSD#A7. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches unfortunately founded nothing noticeably better. SwisterTwister talk 07:24, 24 February 2016 (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.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+<div class="boilerplate afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
+:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]).  No further edits should be made to this page.''
+<!--Template:Afd top
+Note:  If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]].  When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
+The result was '''delete'''.  [[User:Malcolmxl5|Malcolmxl5]] ([[User talk:Malcolmxl5|talk]]) 19:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 ===[[TechFly]]===
-{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|W}}
 :{{la|TechFly}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TechFly|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 February 22#{{anchorencode:TechFly}}|View log]]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks">[https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TechFly Stats]</span>)
@@ Line 12: / Line 19: @@
 :<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/England|list of England-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 18:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)</small>
 :<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Companies|list of Companies-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 18:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)</small>
+*'''Delete''': No [[:WP:RS|evidence]] of attained notability. [[User:AllyD|AllyD]] ([[User talk:AllyD|talk]]) 08:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
+* '''Delete.''' I am not seeing any [[WP:SIGCOV|significant coverage]] in reliable independent sources. None at all, actually, which is surprising considering the weak assertions of notability made in the lead section, barely enough to escape speedy deletion [[WP:CSD#A7]]. ~[[User:Amatulic|Amatulić]] <small>([[User talk:Amatulic#top|talk]])</small> 23:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' as searches unfortunately founded nothing noticeably better. [[User:SwisterTwister|<span style="color:green;">SwisterTwister</span>]] [[User talk:SwisterTwister|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]] 07:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
+{{clear}}
+:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>