Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IllFonic

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. Sandstein 07:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IllFonic

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

Fails notability for companies re: WP:ORG, no significant coverage by secondary sources cited or found. Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 00:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Chuckiesdad, just noticed you marked this article for deletion. I was trying to create the page as I have found a few different wikipedia pages that mentioned IllFonic but hasn't linked to it. I updated these links. Please do not delete if you search for the company you will find it is a legitimate company. Thanks! Chuckb00/Talk/Contribs

Delete Unless reliable objective sources can be added. The author has also started related articles Ghetto Golf and Charles Brungardt, which without substantial coverage also appear promotional and may constitute conflict of interest. 99.155.206.57 (talk) 05:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional, the company lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, and indeed most of this is unverifiable. Fences&Windows 03:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 03:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 03:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable; probably qualifies under promotional anyway. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:45, 19 December 2009 (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.