Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Certes Networks

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) 08:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Certes Networks

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks notability. The article is a little spammy, and I can't find any nontrivial coverage of the company (nor is any cited). --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 10:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by all means and I'm surprised this has not been restarted before, but that seems to answer itself in that it was existing for years and years as it is, but it ends here now, all of the information and sources are simply PR and there's literally no non-PR information, since every single thing mentioned advertises the company's services only how the company exactly would itself. SwisterTwister talk 01:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:PROMO and "corporate spam". If it were to be removed, there would be nothing left. Who accepts these articles? K.e.coffman (talk) 08:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody. It was created in 2010, which I think might be before that was a widespread practice, without review. FalconK (talk) 08:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then all the more reason to delete it with fire :-) .K.e.coffman (talk) 03:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.