Dinclix GroundWorks – Speedy deletion as A7 (No indication of importance) endorsed. Now recreated and at AfD. – Sandstein 10:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The article followed G11 and A7 guidelines, also WAS NOT written in a promotional or advertising tone. A discussion is needed before deleting the article.
Regards. --TheodoreIndiana (talk) 13:58, 31 October 2016 (IST)
Endorse A7 only, does not explain why the company might be notable or important. I didn't find it to be advertising. Stifle (talk) 11:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse A7, as above. Content isn't obvious advertising, but does fail to assert notability in any way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the A7, the text didn't contain any indication of significance or notability. There were a number of inline citations but all to pages written by the company (aside from one which doesn't mention them at all), so I don't think that is enough to avoid A7. While it has the odd slightly promotional sentence I don't think it was a G11 candidate. Hut 8.5 17:12, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I'm not really seeing the G11, but deletion on A7 grounds was certainly proper, and still is, although the article is now at AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinclix GroundWorks, which will also likely have an outcome of deletion. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:30, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
