Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Algoworks

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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Algoworks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Doesn't follows WP:CORP, should be deleted. -AbhishekIndore (talk) 11:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as corporate spam on an unremarkable company. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not seeing anything for WP:CORPDEPTH. Anup [Talk] 19:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Salt given there was a G12 copyvio before this one started, and it still matters even though it was 7 years ago, because the account in this current article was an advertising-only, therefore I can only imagine someone would eventually consider both a G11 and G12 later, hence this seriously would need WP:AFC review before ever getting to mainspace. As for the current article, it's literally and unsurprisingly only focused with what a general business listing would ever care to note, especially the fact there's, not only PR awards emphasized, but the sources are PR, this in itself says enough. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 13 November 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.