Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Livetecs

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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Livetecs

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

I'm not finding sources on my own to meet either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. The sources cited in the article are mainly from the company's website. The rest are press releases, database-driven listings, one person's "top 10" list in a blog post, and reviews from the crowd on social media. Google adds download sites and providers of coupon codes to these. Largoplazo (talk) 11:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only a very exceptional company has a chance of passing CORPDEPTH, this company is not exceptional. Curiously the software package it makes could probably have an article. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 13:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aguyintobooks: So if it was titled "Timelive" and the company itself was only mentioned in passing, it would be more likely to meet criteria in your eyes? Richardaldinho (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not only does it not meet WP:ORG but it has been ostensibly written with the express intention of getting this company on Wikipedia. It reads like an advertorial and if I'm not mistaken, the author has a WP:COI. I don't flat out believe they've done enough research or reading our rules before editing the Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: Absolutely no COI with me - I just want to publish a page. Please don't jump to unfair conclusions. Richardaldinho (talk) 10:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep with conditions: I don't see any issue with the language; not advertising for me. Would suggest a redraft with the software as the focus 86.28.216.250 (talk) 11:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that advertising wasn't among the grounds I cited for deletion. Largoplazo (talk) 13:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Creating entity fails WP:CORPDEPTH, the service fails WP:PRODUCT, and nothing indicates the significance of this product as opposed to similar products, which violates WP:MILL.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find enough reliable sources to satisfy me regarding the GNG. IDC whether or not it is an advertisment. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:14, 22 September 2017 (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.