Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wordbee SA

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. Joyous! | Talk 00:40, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wordbee SA

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

Procedural nomination as article tagged for A7: article may not meet the notability guideline for software or the general notability guideline. Promotional, though that can be solved through editing. Appable (talk) 18:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete no independent soures besides usual promo/PR stuff. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. Just a company page stating facts. There are far worse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.66.68.214 (talk) 09:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. Should have left the CDS A7 tag! -- HighKing 12:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete because i have deleted any PR word for god's shake! Can't understand why the references i used for almost every sentence do not matter. -- BillTango 14:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Note: I am the nominator) after reviewing a bit more. While there are references, almost all of them are trivial coverage such as directories of companies, which does not show the significant coverage needed for inclusion. The one more substantial source appears to be a press release from Wordbee, as it was distributed across multiple websites. None of these sources show any reliable, third-party coverage of Wordbee, and I cannot find other sources online that discuss the company in any more depth. Appable (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete (Note: I am the creator) I understand that some might find the sources not valuable but it is a pity to consider "Trivial" references from huge organisations that Audit and control companies like the GALA association or the Common Sense Advisory. BillTango (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.66.68.214 (talk) [reply]
Delete as corporate spam on a subject with no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note for the closing admin Please note that there is no such user account as User:BillTango and instead the user is User Talk:Bill_tango. Also, the three don't delete !votes above were all made by the same user (IP:212.66.68.214 - BillTango) who has a conflict of interest since he declared that he works at WordBee on the article Talk page. -- HighKing 17:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. Preaky (talk) 01:35, 24 November 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.