Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orchestra Software

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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 22:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orchestra Software[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)

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Lacks WP:RS/WP:RSP, WP:SIGCOV. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I removed the press releases, which comprised 1/3 of the article's sources at creation. As the article currently stands, sources 2 and 5 are the same, bringing the total sources to evaluate to 12. Of the ones that are left, there are company listings (see "examples of trivial coverage" at WP:CORPDEPTH); online reviews (see WP:PRODUCTREV); their own website; and hyper-local coverage through Portland Business Journal, a local subsidiary of BizJournals. This company does not rise to the level of passing WP:NCORP or WP:CORPDEPTH. --Kbabej (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Thanks to Kbabej for diligently working through those references. Given the lack of sources that are both independent and reliable that support notability, this article needs to go. (I was debating about a draftify !vote, but I'm not seeing enough in the article that would hint that this could meet notability with sufficient sourcing.) Singularity42 (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another promotional tech company article with no claim to notability per analysis above. FalconK (talk) 08:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any article that promotes "solutions" smells of marketing. Although I did have a laugh, since there is a big business selling "solutions" for the beverage industry. Coca Cola syrup for example is a "solution" in the non-marketing sense. Too bad, since they seem to supply a useful service to a large industry with many actual customers and have lasted this long. But agree not notable yet. W Nowicki (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it wasn't removed it would be a definite candidate for Category:Articles with a promotional tone. Gusfriend (talk) 07:03, 3 February 2022 (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.