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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Episource LLC[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article is written in an promotional tone. The links provided are mostly PR, and one that isn't PR just mentions them. ... discospinster _talk 22:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This submission is outside the scope of what Wikipedia publishes and does not meet inclusion criteria including WP:GNG. The sources presented are trite and hardly about the company. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on account of lack of significant coverage in multiple sources. All we have are advertorials such as this, an interview with the CEO (see link), etc. The text, incidentally, has been created by the latest mutation of the single-purpose account: within the space of a few days, we get a flurry of irrelevant contributions (e.g. here, here, here, etc) and then the pay shot of the acticle creation. A clear case of promotional work. -The Gnome (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2021 (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.