Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ascertia (2nd nomination)

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ascertia[edit]

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

Borderline spam; no evidence of notability. Cleanup tags unresolved since 2014 re. lack of external sources. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 04:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 12:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No RS per nom, all self-published or partner-published mentions. Jergling (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, again. The article barely makes even a claim to notability. The "awards" are merely industry certifications, which do not constitute awards by any stretch of the imagination. The PC World article provided as a reference has only the barest mention of the company, and is not significant coverage. Efforts to find other sources were not fruitful, as almost all the apparent hits are to press releases or verbatim copies of press releases. A handful of sources appeared facially interesting, but were authored by Liaquat Khan, the company's technical director, and so are not independent. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete and Salt as not only was this deleted in 2011, but it was speedied twice before, this is advertising and it's still being persistently tossed here; none of the listed information and sources go anywhere else than the expected: company information about what this is, the services, who the clients and funders are; nothing here is both substantial and non-PR, and that's enough to delete altogether. SwisterTwister talk 17:09, 29 September 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.