Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cleanify

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanify

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

Non-notable company with sources that appear to fail WP:CORPIND. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 05:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 05:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 05:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 05:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on an intermediation company, describing its founders and funding. A CSD G11 was removed by the article creator. That said, I doubt it would have succeeded as the article content was reporting the start-up funding without promotional tone. I am seeing nothing, either in the article text or in my searches, to suggest more than a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 06:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. As AllyD notes, the references are run of the mill and fail the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:52, 17 July 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.