Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calliflower (2nd nomination)

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Calliflower

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

An unremarkable product from a small private company; significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is PR-driven, routine corporate news, or passing mentions such as in Forbes blog ([1]). First AfD closed as no consensus due to low participation; the only "Keep" vote was from the article's creator (Special:Contributions/Slbedford) with no other contributions outside this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Excesive unsourced information and lack of coverage to establish notability. Many of the sources included in the article do not mention the company. The Forbes or CNET articles for example. The WSJ is a broken link. Only two WP:RS CBS News and financial post seem to be valid and do contribute to its notability, but unless more can be found this by itself is not enough. If more sources are found the article should be neutralized. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rhadow (talk) 12:10, 29 July 2017 (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.