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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:14, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sentera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

The company is not notable. It's even not a stub. The reliable sources are absent. Don't meet WP:N and WP:ORG Sharky tale (talk) 10:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nom summed it up perfectly. versacespaceleave a message! 11:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom JeanPaulMontmartre (talk) 12:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Uncontroversial. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. lacks reliable coverage. TheChronium 15:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Neal St. Anthony is a reliable journalist. The Star Tribune is a reliable source. Business Insider is a reliable publication. Assertions claiming that these sources (often cited in Wikipedia) are not reliable, only weaken an otherwise strong case for deletion. Kablammo (talk) 16:33, 4 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.