Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slenke (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. ignoring the SPAs, as we're supposed to do, , clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Slenke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company. Google news returns one result: PRnewswire. Article has sources but they are mostly low-quality PR pages. The only solid ref is from the Globe and mail. Without diverse sources the company fails WP:GNG and is distinctly promotiional in nature as well. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 9 April 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.