Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ciklum (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 01:10, 1 March 2010

Ciklum

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

Previously deleted, immediately re-created by the same WP:SPA, Ciklum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Claim to notability is a placing in a list by Red Herring magazine, which is currently unverifiable as the pages are 404. Almost entirely the work of an agent of the company. Sources are largely not independent (i.e. repeats of press releases). Needs deletion or a complete rewrite with new sources, IMO. Guy (Help!) 23:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no notability. Haakon (talk) 20:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 *<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''':  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing|list of Computing-related deletion discussions]]. <!--Template:Delsort--></small> <small>-- [[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 19:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)</small>
 *'''Delete''' per nom, no notability. [[User:Haakon|Haakon]] ([[User talk:Haakon|talk]]) 20:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
-*Was the version kept in the first afd any better than the current? &mdash;[[User:Korath|Korath]] ([[User talk:Korath|Talk]]) 01:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)