Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BigFix Inc


 * 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 draftify. ✗ plicit  02:36, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

BigFix Inc

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Reads and looks like spam, no RS. A few days ago appeared also here: Draft:HCL BigFix Morpho achilles (talk) 07:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 09:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 08:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - The strongest refs already cited for the product are and . I found a couple more with coverage of the company:, . ~Kvng (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  11:16, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Draftify The title, infobox and the majority of content are about the company, not the product, despite the lede. The appropriate guidelines are WP:NCORP. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company and on that basis the article should be deleted. But there does appear to be satisfactory references to establish notability for the product. The best course of action is to draftify the article and change it so that the topic is clearly the product and not the company.  HighKing++ 17:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Draftify per above. The product seems to be notable enough, so the page should be about the product rather than the company. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Draftify agree with above, article now has a bit of a press-release tone, could be reworked with some decent sources as discussed. Oaktree b (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2022 (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.