Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperbNexus


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

SuperbNexus

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is written only for company promotional and advertising purposes. References are very poor. No significant coverage by independent media. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here. does not meet notability criteria. Light21 13:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * delete a complete lack of independent sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: A firm going about its business; no evidence of notability provided or found. AllyD (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- no indications of notability and WP:PROMO page. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as examining this has entirely found PR one way or another, the awards or connections listed are entirely trivial and there's not a single substantially convincing source that would be both sufficient and non-PR. I frankly consider this A7 and G11 material. SwisterTwister   talk  23:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find a single WP:RS mentioning this company. Safehaven86 (talk) 19:56, 19 September 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.