Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beamery

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 04:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beamery

Beamery (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)

PROD was removed without any other changes. Similar article AfDed earlier this year. References weak, not notable. Rhadow (talk) 14:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the sources are mostly passing mentions or affiliated sources or press releases. Lacks WP:CORPDEPTH. Domdeparis (talk) 14:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- a directory-like / promo page on an unremarkable private company. Sources are usual WP:SPIP suspects -- interviews, launch publicity, etc. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:TOOSOON. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability, fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:SPIP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I think the previous deletion mentioned in the nomination was a CSD G11 rather than an AfD? As to the article, it describes the feature proposition and the funding, but neither these nor inclusion in a "fastest-growing in sector" list provide evidence of attained encyclopaedic notabiility. Some of the references are items by firms involved in funding this venture, so also have to be considered as WP:PRIMARY. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. (Note there is also a similar Draft:Beamery by the same author.) AllyD (talk) 10:02, 14 September 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.