Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skopactel (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. North America1000 03:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

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

web design company article of unclear notability, lacking independent references, tagged for notability since 2014. A search turned up no WP:RS significant coverage. Dialectric (talk) 02:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Multiple searches at News, Books, browser, thefreelibrary and highbeam found absolutely nothing. The first consensus barely even mentioned the fact this company never seems to have gotten news coverage and taking care of notability issues has certainly improved and expectations have changed from 2005, enough time for this company to have received attention as well. SwisterTwister   talk  05:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Standards have changed a lot in the last ten years. I was also unable to find an indication of notability. Winner 42 Talk to me!  20:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. No evidence of notability at all and unreferenced as well. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 03:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete The fact that the company's article is completely unreferenced, and has only a single sentence, shows that it is completely un-notable. The only source I could find for it was here, and that is a primary source – primary sources are generally frowned upon. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 22:05, 24 May 2015 (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.