Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flexlink


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Flexlink

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

Subject is non-notable, article largely written by paid editors. WP:BEFORE reveals a single relevant source: a two-page discussion in an obscure textbook. ;;  Maddy  ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ ::  talk   14:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Sweden. ;;  Maddy  ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ ::  talk   14:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Sources found are press releases or simple advertorials for a new product. Oaktree b (talk) 17:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete: WP:G11. Unambiguous advertising and promotion. –– FormalDude  talk  02:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete for pure promotion and failing WP:VERIFY. The most recent source is dated 2011 and that's a rotted link. In general if sources are this scarce and this stale an article's subject doesn't meet WP:GNG. This should have been a CSD G11 long ago but probably flew under the radar. Blue Riband►
 * Delete: A longstanding poorly-referenced article listing the wares of a company. The company is mentioned in lists in the articles on the Coesia parent company in the Italian and German Wikipedias, but there is no such article here which could provide an WP:ATD redirect target. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 07:04, 6 June 2022 (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.