Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/pTools (2nd nomination)

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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

pTools

[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)

Article on non-notable company which has been deleted three-times as vanispamcruftisement. And has been repreatedly recreated without any material change in the content or the underlying notability status. The article is still largely spam, the subject still non-notable, and the article still meets the relevant deletion criteria.

Specifically:

WP:G4/WP:G11/WP:PROMO. Similar articles on the same subject have been deleted (at least 3 times under this title) as promotional content relating to a non-notable subject. The first deletion was in Sep 2006 and followed this AfD discussion. The second and third deletions were in Oct 2014 and followed concerns on overt promotion. The article was recreated each time. Substantively containing the same promotional content and tone as before. While much of the overtly promotional content has been incrementally removed over the years, the underlying intent was promotional. And the remaining "stub" stands only to serve that purpose. (It doesn't help that the article's creator is an SPA [and almost certainly COI or PAID) user.)
WP:SIGCOV/WP:GNG. There is no indication that the subject meets the general notability guideline. As part of a WP:BEFORE exercise I went looking for reliable/independent sources which cover the subject in depth. Focusing primarily, given the subject's location, on the newspapers of record in Ireland. Namely the Irish Times and Irish Independent. In the archives of the Irish Times, I found just 11 news articles which mention the subject. Of these, the majority are trivial/passing mentions where the subject is not the primary topic. And so these are not contributory to SIGCOV. Of the 11, while perhaps 2 or 3 relate to the subject directly, these are all substantively "press releases republished as news" type business churnalism. Like this and this. However, this coverage is substantively NOT "independent of the subject", and hence also not contributory. (And, frankly, even if these 2 pieces were entirely independent of the subject, 2 pieces of short coverage doesn't equate to "significant coverage".) The same is true for the Irish Independent, where there are just 4 news articles, and only 1 of which deals with the subject as its primary topic. This piece. Where, again, we find a very short interview with the company's founder, and is therefore another example of coverage which is not independent of the subject.
WP:NCORP. This is small company which had perhaps 20 employees around the time of the article's creation, and has maybe twice that number now. There is no indication that it (or its products) have had sufficient coverage or impact to warrant recreation of previously deleted promotional material.

TLDR version: This article is recreated promotional content on a non-notable (30 person?) company that has received no material/significant coverage which is independent of the subject. Guliolopez (talk) 11:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 11:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 11:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons listed above. Ideally it will be WP:SALTed when it comes back into the new page reviewer queue. Citrivescence (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Spleodrach (talk) 17:41, 6 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.