Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neudesic (2nd nomination)


 * 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) 19:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Neudesic
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Absolutely no sources for anything in the article; not a noteworthy company.
 * Delete - Article is promotional. It fails notability and reliable source guidelines.  - Pmedema (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 19:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 19:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 19:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as this basically seems symmetrical as when nominated it and thus there's, now and then, nothing for any applicable notability, nothing at all convincing for current notability.  SwisterTwister   talk  05:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing here is notable. Fastest growing = not yet notable, and neither is being in the top 500 in a specialized field  DGG ( talk ) 07:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Almost every single source substantially covering the company is a press release. Reliable sources have trivial mentions. Sorry, this just doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:56, 27 May 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.