Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cybage

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. ✗plicit 14:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cybage

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The page of this entity is an end-to-end WP:PROMO. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGIND. Also, there is no encyclopedic value of this page. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 11:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 11:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - rarely do I simply say 'per reasons given by nom' but this is one of those cases where the breaches are so evident to be precisely what the nom has stated that I can add little else. Suffice to say there is simply zero coverage at all of this subject let alone that which is significant, and it is clearly promotional. Such-change47 (talk) 12:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is clearly promotional. It also fails WP:NCORP because nothing in the sources from what I can tell constitutes in-depth coverage. The topics of the articles are also extremely WP:MILL trivia. Either that or paid to print puff pieces. If not just dead links. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2022 (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.