Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MokaFive

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MokaFive[edit]

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

promotional article on non-notable company. It might be possible to write an article about the academic project that ultimately have rise to the company,because some of that projects ideas were used elsewhere. The refs are either about that project, or the general concept, or non-reliable press releases. DGG ( talk ) 01:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional article for a software company, even if its product may be notable, notability is not inherit. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 01:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - If you were to nuke the promotional tone and the first-party sources, it might be notable enough to keep. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 20:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Nathan. There seems to be plenty of possible sources online, although it's quite the haystack. Bearian (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Typical paid fluff padded with unreliable "sources". Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH; only RSs (two, unlinked) do not have company as subject. Miniapolis 13:29, 9 August 2013 (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.