Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Appinventiv

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 13:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appinventiv

[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)

Remade after draftification. While some of the sources provided may pass WP:GNG, I don't think all 3 of them pass GNG, particularly the Economic Times one which is clearly based off an interview or press release. WP:BEFORE search didn't turn up additional strong sources, although feel free to double check. I found some https://ksusentinel.com articles, and it calls itself a newspaper, but the appearance of the website looks a bit like a blog to me, and it has no "About Us" page to confirm that it has an editorial staff. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My Google search found only primary or affiliated sources. Nothing to support notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per the reasoning by the nom. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 09:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, beside PR no signs of notability CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete This non notable and likely paid puff piece. Citterz (talk) 11:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'm looking to add more refrences. Please have a look at the latest citation given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shovapa Trinada (talk • contribs)~~

Blocked sock. MER-C 09:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete As per nom ♠Devan Lallu ^Talk 12:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. The question of UPE is definitely possible. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'm looking to improve the article. Added a new source that should meet one of the criteria.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shovapa Trinada (talk • contribs)~~

Delete – none of the sources added since the AfD was started does anything to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. They are trivial mentions in lists of apps, and/or press releases. Obvious UPE issues as well, with a group of SPAs tag teaming to create and recreate the same text. --bonadea contributions talk 08:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - undisclosed paid-for spam. MER-C 09:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing 11:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & salt Aside from the fact that this has been created three times (!), most recently by a blocked sock (!), it's obviously purely promotional in nature, and about a completely non-notable ROTM company at that. Fails pretty much all there is to fail. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:04, 12 April 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.