Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Read furiously

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read furiously

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

No indication of notability per WP:CORP. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant third-party coverage: just social networks, their own websites, and listings (e.g. Google Books). --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any coverage either. I've warned the original editor about COI, since his username seems to be the same as one of the company's founders' twitter handles. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:44, 16 May 2014 (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.