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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CrowdFlik[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. The only secondary source given and a few I could find only speak of the company's product, but the article is entirely about the company itself. It appears to have been created by an WP:SPA. See also: Chris Hamer. Rentier (talk) 06:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the reasons listed above by Rentier. Online search results for the company name appear to be either primary sources or secondary sources which discuss the company's one and only product — a mobile app — not the company itself. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 10:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not convincing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 8 April 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.