Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ATTRAQT (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. czar 05:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

ATTRAQT
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article including all the companies which is not even functional or being merged into one another. this is classic example of blatant misuse of wikipedia being used for promoting one self and his own companies. This article has misused all the parameters from using Press coverage, non-notable media mentioned to the editing by none other than paid editor on wikipedia. I am nominating all of his companies on the ground of misuse of wikipedia for promoting personally. Light2021 (talk) 06:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was no consensus. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Previous discussions:
 * Logs:

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 01:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 29.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 05:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, I don't think the sources are notable. Sources like PR Newswire seem like put they put anything online, I don't think that is a noteworthy source. --Ysangkok (talk) 03:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ysangkok (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, a Google News search for this company shows that some noteworthy sources do exist; even if the article appears promotional, the subject of the article appears notable. Balle010 (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * just hinting that reliable source may exist is not sufficient. Which are they, and why are they reliable? Like I mentioned before, media like Business Wire is not sufficient, companies literally pay them to print PR releases. --Ysangkok (talk) 17:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You are right. I didn't read through the sources that deeply the first time. There's almost nothing.
 * If you strike-through the statements that you now retract, it will be easier for the admin to see that there is nobody opposing deletion. --Ysangkok (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete: My "delete" opinion in the December 2014 AfD included search evaluation of the company's previous name, however other participants in that AfD saw more value in what I would regard as start-up coverage of AIM listing etc. The article material added subsequently is acquisition and reporting information, most recently appended with a long paragraph giving the CV of the incoming CEO - more suitable for the appointment press release or corporate webpage. Some discussion of the company's performance and prospects can be found on investor sites (e.g. "Simply Wall St") but I don't see that as rising above "routine coverage ... of changes in share or bond prices, of quarterly or annual financial results and earning forecasts": trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. It is a company going about its business, but I still don't see evidence of notability. (However, if others disagree and this article continues, some form of page protection may be considered so that the article doesn't function as an alternative web presence for the company?) AllyD (talk) 10:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ysangkok (talk) 00:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. This tiny company sells merchandising software to larger retailers (Tesco or whoever) so that online shoppers are presented with a mix of complementary products, showing what's new, or related to the shopper's interests, or merchandise the retailer wants to push.  You could call them online advertisers.  (Hm.)  If this company had any significant accomplishments, relationships, players or products, this article would have been sure to mention it in this thicket of corporate trivia, cut back and regrown several times now.  The page history gives background to AllyD's suggestion that page protection or salting (if deleted) might be necessary.  This article was from its creation in Sept 2014 recognized as solely promotional in tone, and its subject not suitable for an encyclopedia.  There was that previous AfD.  A couple of main contributors had short histories of 100% corporate promotional material -- Kentunderstand is one, Hdeimbacher is another.  (Kentunderstand also left us the similar Maistro, also promotional, also AfD'ed for the same reasons.)  This article most recently re-expanded by a user with this busy and wide-ranging edit history.  Uncritical mentions and showcases in the business press don't constitute reliable sources.  This is a press release.  --Lockley (talk) 09:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.