Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deepend (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 21:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deepend[edit]

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

1 ref and its about how the company went under. I say delete, if it was 1 ref and it was about how the company just started, that'll be different. last AfD was undecided. CerealKillerYum (talk) 04:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 04:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep WP:NPASR No argument for deletion. Nothing urgent that needs a discussion without the AfD volunteers getting prepped. Unscintillating (talk) 02:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete for lack of 3rd party references. Some references are buried in the text, but they don't fully support the statements they follow. For example, there is an Ad Age article that shows that Deepend won some award one year, but not two years. Adding to the difficulty of finding good sources, there are a number of seemingly individual web design companies using some variant on "Deepend" in their names. Finding information that is unambiguously about the company in the article is going to be difficult, as it no longer exists, but many others using the name do. LaMona (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete overly promotional and lacking third party sources. LibStar (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dea db eef 21:46, 15 November 2014 (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.