Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riskdata (2nd nomination)

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Riskdata

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

A search for sources reveals mostly false positives and press releases. While I could find instances of independent coverage, apart from one lone news article from 2003 regarding a company position, none of them appear to be significant coverage required to establish notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, can find no significant coverage.TheLongTone (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to the inventor. Deb (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note - a third discussion was opened at the same time as this thread. I have closed it and moved comments here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found exactly two sources: the company's website, and a press release issued by the company. Fails WP:GNG. Presuming from the headline, the paywalled Financial Times source is about Bernie Madoff and may make a trivial mention of the company, but I can't verify. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete again as there are no better signs of this being anything else than a local company, no convincingly better signs of anything else. SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Deb (talk) 12:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant coverage online from WP:RS to suggest notability per WP:CORP. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 13:24, 3 February 2016 (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.