Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenAgent

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) 23:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OpenAgent[edit]

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

There's thick signs this is a clear unconfessed company advertisement and there's still been no attempts made at confirming it, therefore given the newest changes have only emphasized the advertising: "Still nothing for actual independent notability and substance since it's only what they would advertise to clients and that alone is unacceptable in our non-negotiable policies and there's no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone else; the sources here are all clear business announcements and mentions, and wouldn't even be enough for our basic policies.". All of this, combined or not, is enough for deletion. SwisterTwister talk 22:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Xaxing (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Xaxing (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - This article falls in a tricky area in my view, because it probably meets WP:N and WP:V given the coverage in RS, including those already in the article, but the article is overtly written like an ad. "A couple of years ago we set out to transform..." is a glaring example within existing text. It can't be allowed to stand like this as it fails WP:NEUTRAL, so I think WP:BLOWITUP is the way to go, with no prejudice against an objective editor recreating at some point in the future. -- Whats new?^(talk) 10:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Whats new above. PROMO by an SPA. But yes it could be rewritten. @Connections8: If I may try to help you try to save the article please feel free to contact me on my talk page. Aoziwe (talk) 12:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG, no references that meet WP:RS. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:15, 5 February 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.