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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bizequity[edit]

Bizequity (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)

No demonstration of notability. Struggling to find enough independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Run-of-the-mill company. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 10:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 10:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 10:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG. Entirely promotional. References fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND and fail the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:38, 3 October 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.