Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AVST


 * 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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 02:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

AVST

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I can't find any notability here. Very promotional/"about us" in tone, plus a lot of non-notable company and product history. As far as I can tell, all of the sources are either 1) the company website, 2) press releases, 3) secondary reports of presentations/demos by the subject, or 4) investment profiles - none of which meet the criteria for significant independent coverage. There are a couple of secondary mentions of a report by "COMMFusion LLC," but both mentions were very promotional and didn't mention any other company besides AVST, which makes me a bit suspicious of the neutrality of the report. I spent some time looking for good sources on my own, no results. creffett (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lacks multiple reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability under either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH.  As nom points out, sources offered comprise a nearly endless list of complete garbage, company webpages, unreliable "investment" profiles and other trash, all clearly intended to discourage anyone from the tedious job of poking through it to realize there's no there there.  A poster child for WP:MASKing an utterly non-notable company.  Msnicki (talk)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG due to a complete lack of sustained WP:SIGCOV. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Relist or Soft delete: There are some issues around a confused nom. and the notification on the creator's page. I think I'm in agreement with the delete but the notification to the nom. was a tad messy and a re-check may be appropriate.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , yeah, sorry about that, that was my mistake. What happened was that I initially filed an AfD, then ran the page through the copyvio tool and saw that it was a significant match to another site and went for a G12 speedy deletion, then realized that the match was to a known Wikipedia-copying site (first time that I've had that issue, surprisingly) and therefore not a copyvio, so I restored the AfD. Sorry about the mess. creffett (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The big problem is there is a lot going through AfD / PROD at the moment, mainly PHP related. So it is not easy to give due diligence.  However the Afd / speedy notification on the talk page looked messy with uncancelled speedy under the AfD notification (which isn't mandatory anyway).  I've just fixed one permanently dead link; not that it adds much.  Its likely the product CallXpress/CX-E is more notable.  This isn't a sexy product but we have an interesting comment from an adopted here and even  indicates a lot of current action with Microsoft dropping Unified Message on 1 December 2019.  In the end its probably going to delete ... but I'm not sure if I'm seeing something here.  Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2019 (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.