Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TechM Global

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TechM Global

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

Not notable. No sources can be found for this company AdrianGamer (talk) 12:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video games-related deletion discussions. AdrianGamer (talk) 12:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 17:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, no indication of notability. Can't find any web results for this company, and in fact it may actually be a hoax or a very small operation.--Prisencolin (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems to be recreation of Mota Softworks, which was speeedy deleted last November--Prisencolin (talk) 18:32, 18 February 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.