Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goodix Inc


 * 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 01:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Goodix Inc

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable company. A Google search brings up some results, but nothing that would merit its own article at this point. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 06:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment; Note that the user who created the page wrote that edits would be incoming. I added an under construction tag to the article for them. This seems a bit premature, however, I can't see how notability is going to be established for this one either.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  07:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Article creator is at ANI now. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete notability not asserted. . . Mean as custard (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * delete as it stands I see some mentions in RSes, but they're mostly passing with a soupcon of churnalised press releases. Closest I've seen to evidence anyone cares is and that says "blog" at the top. I'm willing to be convinced, if someone wants to dredge GNews and screen out the churnalism ... - David Gerard (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * OMG 'churnalism' is my new favourite word...  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:TNT this article please. It's totally useless the way it is. The creator seems to be on a spree of creating articles like these without adding any references or working on them. They have been brought to ANI for disruptive editing and I don't see any indication that they will stop. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as spam; 'nuff said. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * SNOW Delete as entirely advertising, from specifying the company information to its services and then followed by business partners, there's nothing here for substance and I'll also then note this is unsourced, explained therefore by the fact this was advertising and that alone (advertisers will never care about what genuinely goes to an article because that's not the mindset of advertising). SwisterTwister   talk  23:15, 9 October 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.