Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abacus Solutions


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 00:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Abacus Solutions

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The only non-press release source with some coverage is crn.com, a (from the looks of it) minor tech/business website. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 15:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is the CRN link for the one in-depth article there (there are others with passing mentions); the reference link currently being used appears not to be working. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete&mdash;Single passing reference in NYTimes. Not finding anything else beyond what is already in the article.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not enough substantial coverage, especially in non-newsy sources.  What's more, if they can't say much beyond the fact that they can dissolve information technology infrastructure and emails (see WP:SOLUTION), it's spam-lite, and we shouldn't retain anything that's here.  Nyttend (talk) 00:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Not sufficiently notable. Delete per nom and above comments. --Jersey92 (talk) 00:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and above comments. No substantial coverages, references, or really anything to save it.  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 14:55, 29 July 2014 (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.