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. A clear consensus to delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VYROX[edit]

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

Despite ambitious claims, a search reveals only advertising and no independent reliable sources providing notability. No refs provided perhaps because none exist? Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 02:53, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced.Rathfelder (talk) 10:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could not find sources. Also, the article gives the impression that it is a multinational conglomerate. It has fewer than 50 employees on linkedin, which while dispositive, makes it seem unlikely that the article and current state of the company's growth are in agreement. Similarly, if it were a conglomerate, installing the alarm system in the friendster CEO's house would not be a highlight of 2014. Chris vLS (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source is www.vyrox.com The founder linkedin is https://www.linkedin.com/in/alex-leong-82398535 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeerock88 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Neither of those are anywhere close to being enough to demonstrate notability. In fact it would be expected that they would overinflate how notable it is. Like people don't exaggerate on their Linkedins. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 04:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 01:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna go delete on this one. If the company truly is notable, clean it up and change our minds. This is written like a promotion piece for the company, it is NOT suitable for WP in its current state. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is clear enough considering simply none of this article suggests convincingly keeping and, at that, with solidly better improvements. SwisterTwister talk 04:22, 29 March 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.