Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alchemy Systems (2nd nomination)

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. Jenks24 (talk) 13:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alchemy Systems

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

I thought about it some more, but in the end I concluded that The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement." Sources mentioned in the first AfD are not accessible to me ([1]), and were removed in the rewrite that does not seem to have made the article more notable. Looking at modern Google News hits, I find primarily mentions in passing and PR/preess release stuff. There is [2], but setting outside how reliable and non-local the Austin Business Journal is, the scope of the coverage seems very limited and local (AS taking over "The Chilton Consulting Group, which was founded in 1997, employed 12 workers."). Coverage by trade journals such as Meat & Poultry [3] is problematic (see discussion at talk of NCOMPANY). Yes, it exists, and generates some local/trade journal coverage, but I don't think this is sufficient to merit an entry in an encyclopedia. Oh, and there is also the likely COI-issue related to the article creator, a SPA Alchemy.guru (talk · contribs). As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam that we have to curtail. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete In reading some of the articles that appear in a Google search (e.g. this) it looks like there should be something interesting to say about this company. However, I was not about to find any in depth reporting on the company's work, such as the impact on food service safety. Nearly all sources I found are in some way related to the company (creator of their app, for example). Even the award is from an organization that the company is a member of. I'd change to keep if someone can find better sources. LaMona (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2015 (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.