Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/451 Research


 * 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. WP:NOQUORUM, closing in favour of delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

451 Research

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

My searches have found basically nothing actually convincing of solid independent notability, only expected links at Books and News particularly press releases. SwisterTwister  talk  22:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 00:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 15:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - not enough in-depth coverage. Tom29739 [ talk ] 17:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Yes, the company exists. But most sources either quote an analyst from the company or mention it in passing or talk about it in context of a survey ,,. The dept of coverage WP:CORPDEPTH is unfortunately lacking here. I couldn't find an independent reliable secondary source which talks about the company in detail and focuses on the company itself. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:24, 11 June 2016 (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.