Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ThoughtFarmer (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ThoughtFarmer

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

Such a clear open and shut case, I wish I could've PRODed instead (but we have the 1st 2006 AfD), both this and my searches showed no actual substance exists at all. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- RS are lacking to confirm notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is referenced almost entirely to the company's own self-published content about itself, either on its own website or on press release distribution platforms, with the closest thing to reliable source media coverage being a single deadlinked Vancouver Sun article which was not about this company, but about one of this company's clients. That's not even remotely close to enough to meet WP:CORP. Bearcat (talk) 20:01, 10 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.