Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autocerfa

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. The "keep" opinions are weak: one does not address the issue of sources at all, and another refers to two texts that are clearly barely disguised press releases. Sandstein 21:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Autocerfa[edit]

[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)

No evidence of notability. A Google search turns up nothing for news coverage. ZXVZ (talk) 15:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google news search returns some news coverage in industry specific sources: (e.g. [1] and [2]). It may be notable based on 1700 companies using the software. Given that, and that the software has implications for EU bureaucracy and was promoted by the French government, it may be notable according to WP:PRODUCT rather than WP:COMPANY Machetazic (talk) 13:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's not how WP:PRODUCT works, the company must be notable. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe that Google search results aren't the only things indicative of notability and striking the article as not notable because of a Google search doesn't show an accurate scope of notability. Furthermore, American/British companies have a heavy bias on Wikipedia because they are much more represented on localized Google searches. Autocerfa has French government sponsorships, and the specialized nature of the company tailored toward specific enterprises (not the broader consumer market) means that there isn't coverage outside of industry specific sources.BeeTheBestThatYouCanBEE (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure PR. Sources linked above are press releases. 1700 customers? What's special about that? What French government sponsorships (not that that would make it notable)? duffbeerforme (talk) 13:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- How can you tell they are press releases? There is no contact info for the company and they are not labelled as press releases, so they don't fit the usual format. "Les Pepites Tech," is the official directory for French Tech. See here: [3].Machetazic (talk) 07:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - How can one tell? From reading them. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 16:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pure WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. Routine business with no coverage outside press release, their rewrites or worse. WP:CORPSPAM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. The Decision Atelier source relies entirely on information provided by the company and founder, fails WP:ORGIND and is churnalism. The Blog post fails as a [[WP:UGC|user generated content] and is not considered a reliable source. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:57, 10 January 2020 (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.