Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LanX


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 07:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

LanX

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete. Notability is not met for this organization in accordance with the general notability guidelines. No indication of importance outside of being a finalist in a grant making foundation's contest. None of the sources present the organization in any significant manner. Four sources are not independent, while the NYT article only mentions the organization when sourcing a quote. An individual was responding to the issue of small businesses needing funding and the commentary stated that he was an F&M professor that recently completed a feasibility study for LanX. CSD was removed, but I have no idea what significance or importance the editor considered. The article was written as a promotional effort by a representative of the organization, as indicated on the talk page. When all is said and done, the article doesn't offer us anything other than existence, while the sources lack independence or indication of significant coverage to support notability.  Cind. amuse  09:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Delete I found one passing reference from a web site unconnected with the subject's home page, a passing reference in a paragraph-- not substantial coverage. To quote that page, " there are hundreds of thousands of like-minded social innovators pursuing new ways to solve enduring challenges." And this is cited as an example of one of those many. Concur with Cindamuse's analysis and conclusions above. Willing to keep an open mind should new information surface. (There are other LanX's out there. This one goes by the name Lancaster Stock Exchange.)
 * Breakdown of references on page at the time of this writing:
 * ref 1-- irrelevant
 * ref 2 supports sentence, but is not substantial enough to establish notability
 * ref 3 is part of subject's home page
 * ref 4supports sentence. Does not mention subject
 * ref 5 is a proflie page written by someone connected to the subject. Dloh cierekim  13:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2011 (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.