Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InTheChat

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. Joyous! | Talk 01:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

InTheChat

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

utterly trivial references comprising only that do not show notability. DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as entirely advertising and basically no actual significance at that, the entire history speaks for itself also and shows there's nothing to suggest otherwise convincing here. SwisterTwister talk 01:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- A7 material. No indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A small firm with 21 employees (2015). CIO Review has them as one of its 20 Most Promising Customer Experience Management providers [1] but that is anticipative rather than reflecting achieved notability. I would say this fails to establish encyclopaedic notability at this point; at best WP:TOOSOON. AllyD (talk) 10:48, 18 November 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.