Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Locaid


 * 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. Alex ShihTalk 06:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Locaid

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of notability - one ref is about it being bought and the other is about the company that bought it. Pity this didn't go via AFC.

(Naturally, edited only by an account with a declared COI and a SPA with an undeclared one...) Pinkbeast (talk) 13:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It did get some coverage. But it might be better to merge or redirect to its purchaser LocationSmart. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * A merge wouldn't do much besides insert those refs you have found into LocationSmart, which wouldn't hurt; and a redirect would also seem sensible. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Jupitus Smart  15:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 19:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist
 * Delete The content and references about its acquisition are not sufficient to support a distinct article. The former company's products did get some start-up coverage but I am not seeing substantial coverage of the Locaid company as would be required to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. (Reverting to this version so that it redirects to its acquirer LocationSmart could be an option.) AllyD (talk) 07:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete/Redirect to LocationSmart. No case for a stand-alone article. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 16:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- fails WP:CORPDEPTH for lack of significant coverage. A redirect is unnecessary as the target article does not look to be notable itself, and the term is unlikely to be a valid search term. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Why isn't it a "valid search term"? It's the name of a corporation, an obscure one to be sure, but it's not impossible it could be searched for. The target appears to be notable: nobody has nominated it for deletion or tagged it, and you offer no reason why it is non-notable, so a redirect is reasonable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:30, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect To LocationSmart. Valid search term. L3X1 (distænt write)  02:02, 25 August 2017 (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.