Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CallerReady

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CallerReady[edit]

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

A search fails to find any significant coverage in the reliable sources. Of the six references in the article, only the second appears to be significant, and it's from a source of questionable reliability. The first is to the company's website, while the last three are for patents. Other hits I could find online are merely company profiles and the like. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The second source cited in the article, which the nominator thought might be significant, appears at StreetArticles.com, where it appears that anyone can register and then produce an article, with no editorial supervision; it thus fails as a reliable source per WP:UGC. The piece cited lists its author as "Caller Ready", suggesting a close connection with the subject. Google searches for ("callerready") turned up no significant independent coverage; a Google News search produced no hits at all. Pretty clear failure to meet WP:GNG. Ammodramus (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG as I could find no significant coverage of the company in any independent reliable sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no WP:RS in the article. The subject fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG.--Jersey92 (talk) 01:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 1 May 2017 (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.