Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azendoo

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Azendoo[edit]

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable software product / private company. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes are is PR-driven or passing mentions, such as directory-like listings. Created by Special:Contributions/Raphael.audet with no other contributions outside this topic. Raised about $3 million in funding which strongly suggests it's WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Not seeing notability at this time; reads like a press release/promo piece. Kierzek (talk) 17:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability in the french software industry is well established by numerous articles in tech/business press. Arguments that the article has an advertorially tone does not justify deletion, rather page edition would be more adapted. Ichikokoko (talk) 10:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ichikokoko: I've asked on your Talk page if you happen to be affiliated with the company, about a week ago: User_talk:Ichikokoko. Could you let me know? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above editor is associated with the company; please see disclosure here: [1]. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, sourcing outside of standard press releases or trivial mentions is limited.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 17:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I fortunately speak French enough to read the sources but even those, are simply announcements or notices (2, 3, 6, 13-15, 18, (22 is a press release notice, FYI), 23, 25, 33-35 and 37-38. This is not nearly the independent significant coverage by WP:CORP and WP:N and since we can actually apply our WP:Deletion policy#14 which itself mentions "Anything unsuitable for an encyclopedia". The one Keep vote has stated they have a WP:COI and, while that may not immediately a criteria for deletion, the need to remove whatever promotionalism exists, actually is. SwisterTwister talk 20:46, 2 August 2017 (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.