Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andromo

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. RL0919 (talk) 18:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andromo

[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)

This WP:PROMOTIONAL article by a pseudo-SPA on an app developer lacks any RS except a single, questionable reference to androidauthority.com. A BEFORE fails to find anything that could be added. Chetsford (talk) 08:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a promotional. As you can clearly see, I just discussed this software company's contribution to the development of mobile apps in the last decade. The fact that I could only find a few non-promotional references doesn't mean that it is invalid. Why do I think this is worth being on Wikipedia? It's for the same reasons Google is here. It's not my place to promote a business on Wikipedia. If there is something you think looks promotional in my article, kindly point it out and I'll happily update my work. Please refrain from speculating and base your comments on factual information rather than assumptions. Thanks! :) --Mwengengona (talk) 22:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from speculating and base your comments on factual information Hmmm. Okay. The facts are you made exactly the minimum number of minor edits (10) to achieve autoconfirmed status and then created an article on a company sourced almost entirely to the company's own website, then stopped editing on WP entirely until said article was nominated for deletion at which point you reappeared. WP:DUCK applies. Chetsford (talk) 23:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article seriously under-sourced. Creator would have been perhaps advised to go via WP:AfC but result would likely have been the same.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Blatantly promotional. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 21:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. Good digging from Chetsford too! HighKing⁺⁺ 16:30, 3 July 2019 (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.