Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CleanPix

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. Tone 09:42, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CleanPix

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources 1, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are from the company website or the affiliated Bullfrog Power. 4 is from the National Research Council of Canada, which according to 2 (at [1]) funded the company. 2 is derived from 4. From my WP:BEFORE the best I could find was a fairly brief mention in 101 Ways to Promote Your Real Estate Web Site, but even if that counts as a WP:RS, that's still only one source. Tera TIX 13:23, 15 September 2018 (UTC) (5 is a dead link to a likely non-notable award). Tera TIX 13:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tera TIX 13:30, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Tera TIX 13:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Tera TIX 13:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My bad, I found the archive link to 5, but as I suspected, it's not a notable award. Tera TIX 11:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 04:59, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The case study can be found here but it in turn states the content is derived from the Canadian Industrial Research Assistance Program where CleanPix was a client, therefore this source isn't intellectually independent and fails ORGIND. The other references are also mainly from connected sources, failing WP:ORGIND. There doesn't appear to be any references that meet the criteria for establishing notabilty, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and HighKing. desmay (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2018 (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.