Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mobiquant 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.  → Call me  Hahc  21  00:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Mobiquant Technologies

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Company is not notable. References given are primarily press releases, no reliable citations. Most of the editing has been done by single-use accounts, used only for this article. Article is not accurate, even a brief Google search will confirm that it is based in France. An article on the same company was deleted last year (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mobiquant) and I do not believe that anything has changed since then. Shritwod (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: Large chunks of this article are pasted directly from the firm's website, so are a clear WP:COPYVIO. AllyD (talk) 07:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: The current iteration of the article is referenced to primary sources, also carrying a large sheaf of external links. Neither there nor elsewhere am I finding reason to overturn the 2013 AfD decision. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: The article hasn't been able to overcome any of the problems for which it was originally deleted and fails to meet the notability guidelines WP:GNG, WP:CORPDEPTH. One of the main sources for the article is an event announcement, which is where the WP:CORPDEPTH comes into play. The other article does appear to be an interview(?), but I don't read French. In all my searches, I failed to find anything other than press releases and announcements. But right now the bottom line seems to be that the company doesn't meet the WP:COMPANY standard.EBstrunk18 (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The French JDN article takes an interview form, but the questions are just feed lines about the firm's products. I did also find a similar type of Q&A from Global Security Mag in 2009, but again regard that as effectively a primary source. AllyD (talk) 07:22, 26 March 2014 (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.