Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spinutech

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. Joyous! | Talk 00:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spinutech

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

This does not appear to be a notable business. References are small-town paper puff peices or are non-independent; no signficant news coverage. The only contributors of article content are single purpose accounts, one is Spinutech (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), so this appears to be essentially an "autobiography" (self-promotional conflict of interest). Also, the article was created using the Articles for Creation process, but was accepted and moved into article space by the article's creator, inappropriately bypassing the normal review process of AFC. Deli nk (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article about a small business which makes no claim to notability. The coverage provided in references is local. I can also see indication of a Chamber of Commerce award in its home town (Waterlook Courier 2006 – via HighBeam (subscription required) ) but nothing to indicate more than a company going about its business. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- corporate spam & A7 material. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I concur this is in fact speedy material, basically nothing else significant otherwise. SwisterTwister talk 00:34, 20 November 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.