Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DigitGaps

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. —SpacemanSpiff 16:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DigitGaps[edit]

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

Non-notable company, supported by references from a single source which look as though they're as likely as not paid promotionl material - e.g. [1] --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC) Tagishsimon (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Any genuine "global firm operating across 60 countries and 23 industries" is going to have at least one Google hit other than their own Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn pages and more than zero news hits, neither of which appears to be the case here. The sole "source" is a press release. I note also that their own website (as linked in the article) is a dead link. ‑ Iridescent 09:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appears to fail WP:GNG. —MRD2014 (formerly Qpalzmmzlapq) T C 17:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only source given is pretty flighty; claims made on their social media sites are equally as shaky. The US address is a vanity "virtual office"; I can't find any hint of an actual headquarters. Nor can I confirm their purported membership with the AMA or ESOMAR in directories. Their primary website is down? That seems odd. Kuru (talk) 18:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete One awful source isn't enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and burn with fire. Utterly non-notable. Shritwod (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as quite obviously nothing at all for any actual applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:19, 30 May 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.