Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kickfire

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kickfire

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

Not notable, references not verifiable TaxAct2018 (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks in-depth coverage in reliable sources and the page's current references are only press releases. Meatsgains^(talk) 03:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article was neutrally worded, though poorly sourced and lacking indication of notability, prior to edits by Kickfire which overwrote with poorly-cited promotional text cited to press releases. AllyD (talk) 08:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that edits by another WP:SPA account in May 2015 repurposed an article about the earlier Kickstart Inc (2006 - 2010 when it was purchased by Teradata) to become an article about the distinct firm now using the Kickstart name. AllyD (talk) 08:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Assessing firstly the current (promotionally-worded) incarnation of the article, I am finding no evidence that the current Kickstart brand operated by VisiStat meets the WP:NSOFT or WP:CORPDEPTH notability criteria. Then there is the question of whether Kickstart (2006-10) attained notability which would merit reversion to this version: it did attain coverage for its appliance and is a closer call, but I don't think the coverage exceeded start-up and routine announcements to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2018 (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.