Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enders Analysis

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. This is a "soft delete"; the article may be restored on request by any administrator. MelanieN (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Enders Analysis

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

This article seems to be purely promotional, probably written by a non-neutral party. The first three sources are primary sources (the company's own website). Many of the other sources are not coverage OF the company, but just trivial mentions. No independent sources are listed, nor could I find any. Fails Wikipedia:Notability MB (talk) 04:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests better applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's very difficult to find sources that are about the company. I think this is partly because it's such a popular source for quotations and analysis. However, I did find this: [1] from The Guardian. It's perhaps more about the founder than the company, though. I can see how this might be either kept as a popular source of analysis in the media or deleted for lack of coverage. Paradoxically, I guess either result is OK with me. Sorry for the wishy-washy comment. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:00, 20 February 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.