Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Repusurance

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Repusurance

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

Still nothing actually convincing of the needed independent notability, searches easily found nothing and the current sources are not at all substantial; my PROD was removed with the summary "Remove a few claims". SwisterTwister talk 02:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources negligible. Just corporate PR. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the Hakin9 source is an article by the company's founder that doesn't mention Repusurance; the three "Hacksurance: Insurance against cyberattacks" sources are identical copies of a short CNBC video that talks about cyberattack insurance in general and happens to use the word "hacksurance" in the headline, they say nothing about Repusurance or Hacksurance as companies. (I'd already AfD'd the Hacksurance article on the same grounds.) --McGeddon (talk) 09:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: As per nominator and failure of WP:GNG. KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 13:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in cited sources. Unable to establish notability through other searches. ~Kvng (talk) 17:35, 15 July 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.