Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Itworx

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. Consensus appears to be that the sources provided do not establish notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Itworx[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. The refs confirm that it exists but nothing else even hints at notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For OTRS agents with access to info-en: Please see ticket:2017100510005926. (t) Josve05a (c) 12:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC) fixed ticket #. Primefac (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Kleuske (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam. The article includes a full listing of services and office locations and no encyclopedically relevant content; borderline G11. In any case, sourcing does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH and either routine and / or WP:SPIP in nature. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Josve05a how is that ticket relevant? You didn't say anything.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources in the article itself and the content of the article itself are abysmal, sure. But, I was able to find a few articles that I think satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. TechCrunch and The National have pretty thorough takes on the history and operation of the company. Many other sources talk about the company's work with the Syrian refugee crisis. Others reference the company's role in a hacking scandal. Those are just a few of the sources I was able to find. Gargleafg (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But at least half of the sources you give are either actually in the "press releases" section or still suggest this since the article visibly gives credit to the company for the information including in the public relations-style of crafted announcements or notices, this is not independent as by WP:Notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the standards we use aren't WP:GNG, but actually WP:What Wikipedia is not and WP:Not advocacy and they carry stronger weight than anything else and it's this why that basis is enough any time. SwisterTwister talk 04:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOT and WP:NCORP.--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:55, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. None of the references listed by Gargleafg meet the criteria for establishing notability. References either focus entirely on interviews with persons connected with the company and have no in-depth information on the company, or are mentions in passing with no in-depth content. References fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:33, 19 October 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.