Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3Roam


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 04:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

3Roam

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Likely to fail WP:NCORP. KH-1 (talk) 06:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla  Ohhhhhh, no! 07:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 06:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and France. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  06:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: Insufficient coverage, clearly fails WP:NCORP.  Coco bb8  (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment: Possible COI editing, given that the initial draft of the article was just a copy-paste of press release. See the initial version and look at the last paragraph here. Also, their about page actually links to the Wikipedia article to "learn more", which is unlikely if they didn't write it themselves. However, someone does actually have to do the WP:NCORP checking. If anyone is trying to figure out what this company actually is the archived version of their website is much more helpful than the current one. It appears they've now become a mass-article publishing website trying to do tech support. The article is out of date. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete unless anyone is able to find reliable sources, which I am not Mrfoogles (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability.  HighKing++ 18:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * 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.