Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BOXX Technologies

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. – Joe (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BOXX Technologies (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)

An advertorially-toned page on an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Ther company's products have been reviewed in reliable sources. I particularly liked this item from TechCrunch about the company's workstations being used in a Millenium Falcon flight simulator. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:37, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Even if you counted those as reliable sources, this is supposed to be an article on a company, not a listing of a niche company's products. --Calton | Talk 14:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Other than trade-journal churnalism and warmed-over -- and literal -- press releases about the company products, I see no evidence of notability nor any actual evidence suggesting it. --Calton | Talk 14:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' Agree with nom and Calton. I can't see anything about the company suggesting notability. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP, specifically WP:CORPDEPTH. Most of the sources cited in the article are unreliable or non-notable publications with no known editorial process. The only exception is TechCrunch, which provides just a passing mention. Sources outside of the article are no better. — Newslinger talk 13:00, 26 August 2018 (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.