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. j⚛e deckertalk 00:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Solidiance[edit]

Solidiance (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)

That they have entered into an "alliance" with notable firms does not make them notable. The refs are mere notices, or PR, or things they themselves have written. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 04:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-I would say redirect but not sure what to, as for now delete. Wgolf (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 11:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Reads too much like a PR piece of some random company, failing to see the notability here, as others said. RegistryKey (talk) 13:45, 1 October 2014 (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.