Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deskera (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 and salt, consensus is that notability is not evident. I believe paid editor concerns so far are handled on WP:COIN, seeing as the issue has been raised here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deskera

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

Not sufficiently notable; promotional effort by paid editor Alexbrn (talk) 10:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They have been seriously insistent in trying to get a Wikipedia article up. In addition, the article creator seems to be indulging in undisclosed paid editing and it unwilling to declare. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt as this is another classic example of repeated advertising which was depeted only 7 months ago , still nothing at all convincing. SwisterTwister talk 18:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this please, the founder is a fraud — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.93.153.67 (talk) 10:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable promotional article. The refs arem ostly just noticesabout financing. DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question: I'm leaning delete, per DGG, but what is the evidence of paid editing? I would like a couple links to past evidence. Montanabw ^(talk) 20:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Start at the top of User talk:27century. Alexbrn (talk) 23:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there's more but it involves private information and I am not willing to be indeffed for outing. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Totally unrelated to this AfD, but there should be some kind of equivalent to SPI for UPE accounts (undisclosed paid editors). WP also needs to figure out how to dovetail with the policy of the WMF overall because there are contradictions and no easy way to parse it all. One of the things we deal with here is the question of whether UPE is a grounds for summary deletion of an article that otherwise passes GNG. I don't have an answer, am just thinking out loud, but anyway... Montanabw ^(talk) 04:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete] I've got too many AfDs on my list right now, but these corporate advertising pieces seem to be less notable than the junior hockey league champion. Montanabw ^(talk) 04:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt This fails WP:CORPDEPTH by a wide margin. The article had a bunch of unreliable sources which I had trimmed a bit. Even now, most of the sources wouldn't pass WP:AUD. For companies, COPRDEPTH needs to be satisfied and over here most of the coverage would fall into the routine category. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:06, 2 August 2016 (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.