Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ParqEx

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 03:26, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ParqEx

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

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. Routine announcements or company-generated PR. While some references are from "reliable sources", there are no references that pass the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺12:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The company has received press coverage from time-honored sources such as Wall St Journal and Chicago Tribune. If this is not notable then I don't know what is. Hsypark (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was exceedingly likely to have been created by a blocked sock per[1]. It is also kind of spammy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an advertisement. And it doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Closing a round of funding is not notable. Rentier (talk) 23:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- sources do not establish notability, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete violates our terms of use, also reports are just 'everyday' coverage and doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. jcc (tea and biscuits) 10:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Jcc. No big deal, no depth, no place on wikipedia. Toddst1 (talk) 13:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a unique service and is a promo piece; fails WP:Corp. Kierzek (talk) 17:43, 27 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.