Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QuantumLinx

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. MBisanz ^talk 03:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

QuantumLinx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:N CerealKillerYum (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no indication of notability or significant coverage in reliable sources. It seems the refs consist of announcements (not journalism) and passing mentions in sources not considered to be reliable. Also, GNews search leads to press releases and more announcements. Fails notability and fails WP:CORPDEPTH ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- typical advertorial. Sources are insufficient to meet CORPDEPTH and GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:20, 7 August 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.