Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Easy Data Access

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. MER-C 04:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Data Access

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

unreliable sources for notability.Only article from creator so it seem possible that there is some conflict of interest. DGG ( talk ) 20:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject lacks notability. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 20:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article itself was unbelievable and unwisely accepted from AfC, and I know I myself would not have accepted this, the sources and information are PR, and it's also clear this was part of a PR article campaign, because of the mere sheerness of specifying what there is to advertise about the company. It's not surprising the involved user was, not only persistent about the company, but then had no other contributions or activities at all. This is a company who noticeable seeks PR and that's of course why this article would exist, because there's certainly enough suggesting this is neither a convincing article or actually improvable. SwisterTwister talk 20:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree, as usual a little more care allowing articles to be created meeting style guides would have much trouble. After thirteen years the company might be notable, but this article is close to the usual litany of "awards" that mean someone took a poor journalist to lunch. W Nowicki (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above - David Gerard (talk) 19:10, 2 October 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.