Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cynoteck

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cynoteck[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Was tagged for notability, then prodded by Smartse, which was removed without comment or improvement. Not enough in-depth coverage to meet either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Minnesota. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is miles away from meeting WP:CORP as I'm unable to find even cursory independent coverage. SmartSE (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Lack of any kind of sourcing found, I only get 5 hits in all of Gnews, most don't even look related to this company. Oaktree b (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent sourcing; not notable. Kablammo (talk) 08:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just another mid-tier software company failing WP:CORP MNewnham (talk) 02:57, 11 March 2023 (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.