Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VersionOne

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VersionOne[edit]

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

I still confirm my extensive and specific here which clearly states this was yet another article part of a PR advertising campaign and there's nothing else to suggest otherwise. As I noted with my PROD, this has been deleted before as advertising and it was actually not only restored by request of 1 user, but then this different version of an article was started by another advertising-only account, showing the sheer persistence and blatancy, therefore we would literally damn ourselves as an encyclopedia if we accept such BS advertising. SwisterTwister talk 03:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 03:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 03:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 03:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's statement --Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 03:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom - the REFBOMB is extensive but doesn't stand up to examination - David Gerard (talk) 10:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete Incredible. 21 sources and not a single mention of the company's software, their applications, or any particular impact on the wider culture. I am not convinced this counts as in-depth coverage. Dimadick (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2016 (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.