Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nomis Solutions

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 02:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomis Solutions[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I am not seeing substantial coverage in reliable sources as required to meet WP:CORP - coverage is limited in scope or in specialist sources (WP:AUD). SmartSE (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not a fan of WP:AUD, which I find to be one of those special rules written for corporations simply to counter-act corporate publicity, and which as written makes little sense (so coverage in Maltese - national - newspaper is OK but coverage in the London Evening Standard isn't?). In this case, even ignoring it I don't think this quite gets over the bar for WP:CORP, since the coverage in reliable sources appears to be entirely quotes of employees and bare mentions of the company. FOARP (talk) 16:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:AUD covers it exactly. decent coverage in money and business sources, not a single ref from a mainstream source. (I couldn't access the WSJ source which is an upload on revenueanalytics.com?). No real info either, reads like a promo. Hydromania (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2019 (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.