Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Predictive Index (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Predictive Index

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

This is a promotional article for a company that makes this product. The only sources are promotional pieces. It was previously deleted for basically the same reason. There is no significant independent coverage of this company or their products. Not notable. A lot of the edits appear to be from people who work at the company and end up getting removed or reverted. Pilotbob (talk) 00:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:38, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The current sources are suboptimal. I don't seem to find enough coverage of either the founder or the company in reliable sources. I have found one mention in a large paper, The Washington Post and it is only a mention, not coverage (which could even refer to something else under that general name). —Paleo Neonate – 06:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The current sources are not RS. Quick Google search doesn't bring up much, or where it does, its use of the term in unrelated contexts. Seems to be used in science, but for unrelated reasons. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Doesn't meet WP:GNG and article is promotional in nature. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:35, 16 October 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.