Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PROLIM

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PROLIM

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

Per WP:NCORP, WP:PROMO, and WP:GNG. Non-noteable corp with a promotional tone to the article. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 19:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) self promotional puff piece. Theroadislong (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find that many reliable and independent sources talking about this company, only the usual press releases. The Crain's Detroit piece stands out a little, but it's only a piece on the founder of the company, not the company itself. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly promotional, bad English and the first edit of single-purpose account. W Nowicki (talk) 17:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Article is corporate spam. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could find this report on Prolim. Unfortunately, I have no idea whether the source is reliable. Delete is the only possibility right now. Lourdes 15:49, 25 January 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.