Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intellinote

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 05:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Intellinote

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

This is still so questionable for the applicable notability and my searches are only finding a few links at News but PR is also listed there, there's simply nothing convincing to suggest better notability. The best I found at News was onyl a 2014 Forbes article with only mentioning them, and not actually being in-depth coverage solely or largely about them. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - PCWorld reference is sufficient for notability. Fieari (talk) 04:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Broadsoft think they are significant.--Socnet (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – a single reliable source is insufficient to establish notability. SST flyer 02:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Except the PCMag note everything else seems like routine/PR coverage of funding, the usual start up spam cruft. With only one good refs, this fails the multiple good refs requirement. WP:TOOSOON, maybe. If this becomes popular and gets more coverage outside funding, it can be recreated. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note that the two Keep votes are not suggesting anything else different than I myself had said by said that the only best sourcing was the said news sources included, nothing else at all convincing thus still not enhancingly better or otherwise acceptable at this time. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 10 June 2016 (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.