Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holoxica Limited

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. SpinningSpark 16:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Holoxica Limited

[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)

Article fails WP:NCORP. Also elements of WP:PROMOTION Angryskies (talk) 18:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has enough mentions in reliable sources to be notable, and it isn't that promotional in tone. Either it's promotional enough to warrant G11 or it isn't, and deletion isn't cleanup. PrussianOwl (talk) 23:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Most of the sources are unverifiable, and go to 404 pages. Netherzone (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For one, the article is clearly promotional and would take a fundamental re-write to not be. While I agree generally that AfDs aren't cleanup, you can still include something like WP:TNT in an AfD that involves other reasons for deletions like lack of notability and the subject of the article is clearly not notable. On the sourcing, the first source is an interview with/about the founder. Which isn't neutral. Same could go for #6. The others either seem like trivial coverage (product releases and awards) or are dead links that sound by the titles as more of the same. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As clearly promotional. The only kind of coverage I can find (besides that described in the article by Adamant1) is further trivial mentions, nothing sufficient to substantiate notability. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. User Holoxica started this article and the self-promotion is painfully obvious. --Lockley (talk) 04:15, 16 June 2020 (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.