- Dinclix GroundWorks (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
The article followed G11 and A7 guidelines, also WAS NOT written in a promotional or advertising tone. A discussion is needed before deleting the article.
Regards. --TheodoreIndiana (talk) 13:58, 31 October 2016 (IST)
- Endorse A7 only, does not explain why the company might be notable or important. I didn't find it to be advertising. Stifle (talk) 11:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse A7, as above. Content isn't obvious advertising, but does fail to assert notability in any way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse the A7, the text didn't contain any indication of significance or notability. There were a number of inline citations but all to pages written by the company (aside from one which doesn't mention them at all), so I don't think that is enough to avoid A7. While it has the odd slightly promotional sentence I don't think it was a G11 candidate. Hut 8.5 17:12, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. User_talk:DMacks#Deletion_of_Dinclix_GroundWorks was a reasonable discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. I'm not really seeing the G11, but deletion on A7 grounds was certainly proper, and still is, although the article is now at AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinclix GroundWorks, which will also likely have an outcome of deletion. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:30, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
|