Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ValidSoft (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. ✗plicit 23:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ValidSoft[edit]

[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)

Spammy article about a company that does not appear to meet WP:NCORP sourcing. It was soft deleted following a low-participation AfD discussion in 2021, and then undeleted upon the request of an SPA who claimed that there were new citation to prove its notability, but the article is still supported by the same four references that supported the deleted version - nothing new has been forthcoming. These are: a blog run by an affiliated company, a deadlink to a (presumably self-authored) profile on Bloomberg, another blog by an affiliated company, and a press release - nothing at all that is independent, reliable and secondary. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and United Kingdom. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Language like "world leader of solutions" was clearly written by a marketing person, pure promotion. W Nowicki (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have opened an SPI on the three users who recently made the same revisions within an hour: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Littlepeach1. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: IP 2605:A601:A3A9:A400:A126:5DAE:7CFC:98A0 has just removed the AfD notice on the page while discussion is still ongoing. I've put it back. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 16:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that User talk:Littlepeach1 attempted to delete a portion of the first AfD discussion. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage in reliable sources. If the company was indeed a "world-leader" I would expect to see a bit more coverage. Simply spam. AusLondonder (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As the nomination says, the current references are weak, and fall far short of demonstrating encyclopaedic notability. Searches find recent announcement-driven coverage of an appointment [1],but that falls under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. The firm is also among the vendors mentioned in a recent sector report by Opus Research [2] (with whom the company had previously jointly published a study: [3]) but I don't see these as sufficient to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references meets the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails WP:NCCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 11:52, 26 April 2022 (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.