Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solutions Resource

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 per consensus. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 10:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Solutions Resource

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

Written like an advertisement and all references appear to be from company created content. This company is not notable and it seems it has been created only to promote or publicize this company. — Music1201 ^talk 22:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No independent references provided to establish notability, none found. --Finngall ^talk 22:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very promotional article which doesn't establish notability, and the aforementioned lack of reliable sources indicates that it is not inherently notable. GAB^Hello! 22:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with GAB, this article is written like an advertisement. Technetium-99 (talk) 22:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy d~~Delete I removed all the preening and WP:NOT material and wound up with an unremarkable software company with a staff of "more than 20" employees. ~~I've tagged it for speedy deletion, so we'll see what happens.~~I tagged it for speedy deletion but changed my mind, since the article's been created three times before and it seems this AFD is going to be dispositively in favor of deletion, so let's just settle it here. A Google search for "solutions resource" (bellevue OR seattle OR philippines) doesn't seem promising as far as WP:GNG is concerned. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 23:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 23:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 23:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is written in a highly promotional tone, no sources I could find would help establish notability. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 23:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Page reads like a puff piece and notability is not confirmed in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 00:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW 'Delete as simply none of this suggests at least minimal notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Edwardx (talk) 13:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per all of the above.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:55, 14 April 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.