Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wirehive

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 06:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wirehive (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:NCORP. No coverage by reliable and independent secondary sources. Brycehughes (talk) 10:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No signs of any better applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Multiple searches (Highbeam, Guardian, Google) turn up nothing to indicate this firm is notable. The best found was a case study by a firm with whom they have a commercial relationship. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:10, 17 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.