Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centuric

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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Centuric

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

This company doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Google results are just things like Facebook, directories, press releases, that sort of thing. Google Books and News turned up nothing. The "sources" on the article itself aren't any good. There are a couple of press releases, including one that the citing claims is an article from the Boston Globe, a (dead) link to a website of an organization they helped found, a local conference's page noting that the CEO was invited to speak, with a small blurb that was clearly written by the company itself ("We continually align our products and services..."), a list of 250 companies that some news website feels "are on the cutting edge of technology" with no detail about any of them, and which doesn't even include the full list anyway, which means the cite doesn't actually mention the company, a blogpost, and a couple of duplicates. Egsan Bacon (talk) 04:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (talk) @ 16:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to say delete based on notability guidelines, really. In terms of independent sources the company might as well not exist. This appears to be the tech version of a local roofing company. I'll freely admit I've been off Wikipedia for some time and might have missed out on some bureaucracy, but if a general google search is trying to link the end of "percent" and "uric acid" to give me results, the company isn't likely to be notable. Pete Shan osky 03:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this on facebook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.200.131.145 (talk) 09:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete top 25 in a particular state is not notability; a listing for "up-and-coming" means not yet notable. " DGG ( talk ) 02:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not yet notable as noted by DGG. TOOSOON Jim Carter (from public cyber) 10:45, 30 August 2014 (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.