Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inside Edge

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. MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inside Edge

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

No evidence of any notability. The NYT only has peripheral mentions and references a product and not the company (although in this article the two are hard to separate). Recent edits by what appears to be a publicity department haven't helped and have been reverted. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. There is no substantial coverage of the company in independent/reliable sources that meets the criteria for notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Flunks lé GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence(

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.