Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vocapia Research

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. None of the keep !votes put forward policy based reasons for keeping the article. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vocapia Research

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bishonen | talk 20:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep and improve This article is somewhat informative but I agree it misses some links and external view. I will see if I can improve as I know this company.192.44.78.123 (talk) 16:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found nothing better at all thus I know I can at least expect no obvious improvements and the article is still noticeably questionable. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks like the article is going in the right direction. I find this above last comment (which is difficult to parse) a bit harsh. Why not allow some time to improve the article.Jlcaune (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article provides useful information about a French SME which offers an alternative to the solutions offered by giants like Nuance, Apple and Google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biancaxl (talk • contribs) 21:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC) — Biancaxl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Vocapia Research is a French PME which is providing commercially reliable applications in speech recognition and is also close to the academic world. It is an opportunity to have other standpoints that the ones from well known big companies.Ioana Vasilescu (talk) 11:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)— Ioana Vasilescu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Natg 19 (talk) 00:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see any subjective claims in the article. It actually refers to external links showing that the company has some visibility in the field. Therefore, I don't see why it should be questionable. The article may need some improvements in the History section. Thfraga (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)— Thfraga (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please add new comments below this notice.

Delete A company such as this gets an article when it receives substantial coverage in multiple, reliable sources that are independent of the subject to satisfy WP:GNG. It does not get a Wikipedia article just because primary and directly affiliated sources or passing and trivial mentions verify that it exists. None of the sources in the articles pass muster and nothing like substantial coverage in multiple, reliable sources that are independent of the subject can be found on Google either - all I get are primary sources, press releases, passing mentions and the like - I'm not finding good, reliable sources where the company is the subject of the coverage. The company's automatic speech-to-text transcription software on the other hand might meet the inclusion criteria if it has been covered in depth in independent research papers in academic journals. So delete this article about the company without prejudice to an article being created about the software if good, reliable source coverage about it is brought forward.

Finally, if any of those who have argued to keep the article are employees of the company or have a close affiliation with it, then you should know that you have a conflict of interest, which is strongly discouraged as it undermines public confidence in Wikipedia and risks causing public embarrassment to the companies (or individuals) being promoted. You must disclose your conflict of interest on your user page and during any discussion about the topic, including this one. You can do this now. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:12, 19 April 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.