Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WP Engine (2nd nomination)

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP Engine[edit]

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

Every ref is either a mere notice, or just a best place to work award or tribute from a local business journal, which is not reliable independent coverage. The use of such awards as refs implies there is nothing substantial. DGG ( talk ) 15:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 15:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam on a subject with no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable by general or CORP standards. Fluff sources; independent RS lacking. DonFB (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Nothing is here! Only exist to promote itself as a directory Light2021 (talk) 04:57, 14 January 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.