As User:Anachronist failed to provide any feedback on this talk page and simply threw warnings on the page, it's difficult to judge what they find wrong specifically and how to correct it. The page had been stable for six years prior, with no other editors making such complaints as advertising and notability. That stability, plus the unfortunate lack of comments makes it difficult to tweak this article to standards. Editor removed primary source links, and while they provided context, I'll leave those deletions in place. I'll look further into what changes can be made, though there doesn't seem to be puffery and advertising language to remove. Additionally, there are plenty of third-party, non-primary sources backing up the page that I question the editor's evaluation of lack-of-notability. Lostraven (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
- It should be obvious. This contributors to this article, who may have a conflict of interest, apparently felt that adding a huge amount of fairly useless references would give the topic an appearance of notability. Just look at them. Trivial mentions, business directory listings, directory profile descriptions, press releases, things published by Lablynx, even a LinkedIn article. I didn't go through them all, but after going through a dozen and finding not one single source that established notability in accordance with WP:CORP, I tagged the article. I did this instead of proposing it for deletion at AFD to give someone a chance to improve it. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
