Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fyle Technologies


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Fyle Technologies

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG/WP:NCORP. Kleuske (talk) 21:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Are you kidding me? It passes primary criteria for WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. A search from Here turns out a lot. Edidiong (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep I agree with what Mredidiongekong a.k.a. Edidiong said above. This article definitely passes WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. However, the article should definitely be improved. 344917661X (talk) 22:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. cinco deL3X1  ◊distænt write◊  00:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. cinco deL3X1  ◊distænt write◊  00:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. cinco deL3X1  ◊distænt write◊  00:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. cinco deL3X1  ◊distænt write◊  00:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete: does not meet new and improved WP:NCORP; a minor tech startup vying for attention. Sources offered in the link above (as "Here") are routine notices; passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: An article about what its sources describe from the May 2018 press release as a "SaaS-based expense management software startup". Routine 2017-8 announcements about company funding, product announcements and the most passing of mentions under "Alternatives" in an Irish Times product round up are insufficient to demonstrate the substantial coverage needed for WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Negligible coverage. Not notable enough. Promotional stuff. Possibility of WP:COI. Accesscrawl (talk) 13:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Notable per Edidiong and 344917661X. Satisfies GNG. Calling coverage "routine" is a ridiculous non-argument. The fact that some receives coverage on a regular basis makes it more notable, not less. Anyway, GNG always trumps ORG. James500 (talk) 04:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Notable per article creator? The "routine" is to be found at WP:CORPDEPTH and covers pretty much all of the sources googled. Please specify one or more that are not covered by WP:CORPDEPTH, since I find it hard to take this seriously and not view it as a plain vanilla objection w/o any merit or back-up. Going over your AfD contributions only strengthens this impression. Kleuske (talk) 10:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The key words were "GNG always trumps ORG". If you bother to read the lead section of N, you will notice that a topic that satisfies GNG does not need to satisfy any SNG. Bear in mind that the talk pages of SNG have limited participation compared to WT:N. Bear in mind also that we act according to consensus, not what a minority have got into an obscure backwater guideline while the majority were not watching. James500 (talk) 11:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmmm.... Being curious I searched for that phrase and curiously, the only thing that comes up is... your objections to various AfD nominations. Please point out this sentiment in the guideline, because I missed it (and so did the Wikipedia search engine). Kleuske (talk) 11:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Notability says "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right" (emphasis added). The key words there are "either" and "or". If a topic that satisfies GNG also had to satisfy any ORG, those words would respectively read "both" and "and". Certain editors have tried to change the wording of that passage for years, and consensus at WT:N has always been strongly against any change, because the wider community does not want GNG to be overridden by SNG that purport to restrict GNG. James500 (talk) 12:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not "trumps" and the article does not meet WP:GNG, since there's no significant, indepth coverage, apart from run of the mill mentions about investments. Kleuske (talk) 13:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with the people that voted delete. It fails WP:CORPDEPTH as of now. Edidiong (talk) 10:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and K.e.coffman. Perhaps it is WP:TOOSOON, as it currently stands it's simply not demonstrably notable. Ifnord (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2018 (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.