Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avaza


 * 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. WP:SOFTDELETE given no input other than by nominator Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Avaza

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable software, based almost entirely on interviews on advertising platforms and entrepeneur "communities". Google search revealed no additional independent in-depth coverage (there are a lot of false positives from other "Avaza" topics). Note: I have removed one misrepresented user-review site (see history). GermanJoe (talk) 10:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 10:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Source review: With only 1 OK-ish source and 4-5 fluff pieces, there is not enough independent in-depth coverage by reliable sources to establish notability. GermanJoe (talk) 10:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * ref #1 (Startup Daily): Interview-based, no author information. Every single bit of information is based on the founder's say-so. No evidence of independent journalistic coverage.
 * ref #2 (PRWeb, now removed): Not independent coverage, but atleast they are transparent about it.
 * ref #2 (Enterprise Times): The best of all available sources. Partially based on company information, but it includes some additional critical analysis and uses relatively cautious measured language. Sums itself up neatly with "This could be a company to watch." (WP:TOOSOON).
 * ref #3 (G2 Crowd): User review-based "research" site, conveniently combined with a purchase advice chat.
 * ref #4 (nine.com.au): PR announcement based on company info (see the site owner's mission statement), no author info.
 * ref #5 (Anthill Magazine): 5 shared tips by the company founder, not independent coverage. No author information, but the author added almost no content on their own anyway.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric  17:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:00, 7 June 2017 (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.