Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MedicLINK Systems Ltd.

:{{la|MedicLINK Systems Ltd.}} ([{{fullurl:MedicLINK Systems Ltd.|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MedicLINK Systems Ltd.}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Unnotable failed start up company. Fails WP:COMPANY. After extensive searching, only third-party references found are a company direct giving revenue numbers (has all business of Canada), and a single niche magazine for optometrists in Canada. Extensive searching through journal databases result in not even one hit. Searching The Telegram, the local paper of St. John, also produced no hits. It can't even really be verified that the company is out of business other than knowing that the owner himself said so while editing the article before being blocked for using Mediclink as his user names. Article vandals, seemingly disgruntled employees, implied the company was being sued for labor issues and tax evasion, however not even a rumor on a forum was found to support this. After cleaning up the COI and looking purely at what can be found in reliable sources, this company just does not meet WP:N and should be removed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Similar to the nomination for deletion, I also could not find any reference to some claims in the article. The company seems to be defunct (the website is no longer live) and the companies product redirects to a dead link. --HJKeats (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, fails the relevant notability guidelines. This was yet another failed, minor software company making business management software for use in optometry clinics --- good luck at finding independent notice in general interest publications for that. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.Bildstit (talk) 08:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Striking out !vote of a sockpuppet of a banned editor. MuZemike 05:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete; the 1 current reference is not enough to establish notability. Dialectric (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

: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.