Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EZLynx

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. Mz7 (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EZLynx[edit]

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

Can't find sufficient reliable source coverage to suggest that this organisation is notable. Could only find press releases or passing mentions. Sam Walton (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam; content belongs on the company web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; clearly corporate spam. -- Dane ^talk 03:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Pure corporate spam. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2017 (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.