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 speedy deleted as spam. (non-admin closure) 2600:387:A:15:0:0:0:BB (talk) 16:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Congenica[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:GNG. I find no sources that are independent of the subject and rise to the standard of WP:CORPDEPTH. Rentier (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Corporate promo. Achievement yet to be demonstrated. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising. Many of the citations are to the company itself; the rest are directories and / or WP:SPIP. I requested a G11; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only in business since 2012, fails WP:SUSTAINED. Unscintillating (talk) 23:34, 23 December 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.