Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ComputerSupport.com Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ComputerSupport.com

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. RL0919 (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ComputerSupport.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable company, most references are WP:ROUTINE coverage, the linked awards don't strike me as sufficiently important to confer notability. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 17:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 17:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 17:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 17:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom. WP:NOTAWEBHOST Ravenswing 23:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Obvious advert/spam. There's a citation to a book some guy connected to the company is selling on Amazon. Which has nothing to with anything. Even without that its not notable anyway. Inclusion in a bunch of top-lists doesn't make something notable. Inclusion in them are examples of trivial coverage per the notability guidelines for organizations and companies. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This was speedily deleted in 2013 and rightly so, and then recreated in 2016. Still no reason for it to be here though. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2020 (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.