Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Segment (company)

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. Sandstein 10:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Segment (company)

[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)

This looks like a typical vanispamcruftisment; however I am not endorsing the WP:G11 tag as an "advert" tag was removed by BeenAroundAWhile who has done some cleanup. Nevertheless, I am sceptical we can write a detailed, neutral encyclopedia article about this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it was me who started this article because I found multiple independent reliable sources that showed to me it looks quite notable. I also started several other articles about different subjects some time ago that also look notable - those include popular people, software, also open-source, cultural nonprofit project... Tried best to see notability proved in/by citations. However, I am just several-month-old as a Wikipedia editor, I do not have any connections with any of those subjects or any desire to advertise any of them or anything at all, and I want to learn to keep advancing as an editor, so it is interesting to understand why this subject is not notable and cannot be described on Wikipedia in a good way (if you and someone else think so) as personally I think it is notable and can be. The sources referenced in the article look like the article can be improved and extended and written in a neutral way, why not, and a quick search now shows me there can also be more of good sources found that could add more and help in further edits. I do not think this article needs to be deleted. I think this article may be extended and improved further. This is just my opinion however. Thank you. Avbgok (talk) 09:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article suggests it is an average start up looking for fame, and getting its press releases reprinted here and there. WP:CORPSPAM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:36, 8 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.