Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruxit


 * 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. Mkdw talk 19:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Ruxit

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

References are press releases or mere notices.  DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete for now - Too new to receive much significant coverage with the my searches here (a flashing amount of PR) and here. SwisterTwister   talk  06:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - Added reliable / neutral sources e.g. gartner. Already 100+ customers. Comparable companies are also listed. scepticeditor (talk) 11:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC) — scepticeditor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Although it started poorly it seems it was with good intent, and if you try you can find good sources for the company. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep there seems to be comparable pages in the same industry, and there's some noteworthy mentions - author and contributors just need to add more sources and meat to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.166.42.90 (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮  JAaron95  Talk  15:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak delete Yes, it's a COI editor who has not followed wp:coi guidelines. And yes, there are a few possible RS, although there are non-RS that should be removed. (E.g. the Forbes articles are by contributors, thus close to being blog posts.) However, this is a product launched less than one year ago, and I think that we should extend WP:TOOSOON to the software category, with a guideline that states that an article consisting primarily of product launch announcements (which, even when in RS are a form of publicity) is just too soon. LaMona (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  Talk  14:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Admins, please note: COI/SPA alert. Better than your average spam entry, but not seeing any serious coverage. Blogs, mentions in passing, etc. I don't see how it passes WP:CORP. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Someone above says "if you try you can find good sources for the company", but I am unable to do so.  I guess it depends on how you define "good".  Someone else says "contributors just need to add more sources", but is apparently unwilling/unable to do so themselves.  Overall, I don't think this company meets criteria outlined at WP:CORP.  Deli nk (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2015 (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.