Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kuliza 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Kuliza Technologies

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has really nothing to write about or talk about. On company locations 1 paragraph is wasted. and others does not even talk about their impact or even why they exist. Non-notable company. Only existence proves for promotions alone. Only made for customers or employee for online reputation. Not an encyclopedia material at all. standards Popular media references are being used to create an article here. Light2021 (talk) 18:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and this should not have been accepted from AfC, but then again Wikipedia was seriously damned and troubled with advertisements at the time, something that we still battle with today and that's why we need to take these subjects seriously, because there's literally nothing, the history also shows how it's been maintained as such by what seems to suggest are the company employees themselves who are of course the best and only people when it comes to advertising themselves. As such there's nothing to suggest we need tolerance of it, especially when the literal PR awards are unconvincing and as is everything else listed. SwisterTwister   talk  21:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'll stand by my AfC decline. Being among a crop of fast growing companies does not show notability. There are many ways to measure growth: revenue, capitalization, employees, .... The measure can be absolute or relative. Landing a $100,000 contract might increase revenue by 2000 percent. Even the Deloitte article implies the company is "small" (but pages are offline now). Also, restricting the sample to a small subset (particular technology in India) does not suggest significant impact on the community. Choose the measure that makes you look good. BusinessLine article says there were 371 startups; article is also an interview with the CEO rather than an independent analysis. Flinging buzzwords like "social networking" and "mobile platforms" does not make a company notable; the first paragraph is meaningless. WP:CORP teaches that capitalizing a company or having employees does not make the company notable. The second paragraph does not show WP:N. The only stated claim in the article is it is a fast growing software development/business consulting firm (with only 70 employees, how big can it be?). There is absolutely nothing about what the company has done for its clients let alone something that would cause the public to take notice. Glrx (talk) 18:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- strictly corporate spam on a non-notable entity. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, as WP:NOTPROMOTION. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: I'm not sure where the Promo or Spam thing is coming from because I don't see anything like that in this article (at least, blatant promo or what we do normally observe in company related articles). It should be deleted because it fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Anup   [Talk]  21:07, 4 November 2016 (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.