Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xshellz (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Xshellz[edit]

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

A previous article on this firm was deleted following AfD on 23 October 2013, but this article has now been created by a new editor. Apparently the text is insufficiently similar to the previous to meet WP:CSD G4. Neither of the two online resources that are offered as references appears to me to be a significant award. My view - as per the October AfD - is that there is a lack of evidence that this firm meets WP:CORPDEPTH, hence here we are back at AfD just a month after the previous. AllyD (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD G4. I strongly disagree with the declining admin: [1] whatever text (I don't see it) was there in the previous version, the concerns about promotional nature and total lack of secondary sources haven't been addressed in this version. Articles once deleted at regular AfD should be held to higher standards than first submissions, because the due diligence in searching sources has been done before. No such user (talk) 07:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at whatever speed you need. Not notable without any independent sources. If they ever grow large enough to be covered, that would be the time to add an article. Far too many three-person-and-a-web-site companies for an article on each one. W Nowicki (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2013 (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.