Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IndeJuice
Just a recap for editors:Reference 1 (domains.google.com) - Company listing, '''not independent'''Reference 2 (find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk) - Company listing, '''not independent'''Reference 3 (trademarks.ipo.gov.uk) - Trademark listing, '''not independent'''Reference 4 (databox.com) - Brief mention in a promo content site, likely not independent and '''not significant coverage'''Reference 5 (download.cnet.com) - Not a CNET news article, but an application listing that contains a paragraph from IndeJuice themselves, '''not independent'''Reference 6 (ventsmagazine.com) - 2 short paragraphs in a news article about five different companies, independent but '''not significant coverage'''Reference 7 (register.fca.org.uk) - Company listing, '''not independent'''Reference 8 (assets.publishing.service.gov.uk) - Company listing, '''not independent'''Reference 9 (gov.uk) - Company listing, '''not independent'''Reference 10 (gov.uk) - Company listing, '''not independent'''Additionally, no reliable independent sources providing significant coverage are found in several BEFORE searches. In conclusion, this is a definite failure of ,  and CORP
— User:SK2242, 13:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:N||WP:GNG||WP:NCORP (Wikipedia:Notability)