Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TechExcel (2nd nomination)


 * 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) 20:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

TechExcel
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

One of a promotional pair of articles on non notable company and its product. The combination almost invariable represents COI editing. The refs are not sufficient for notability. I first thought a merge might help, but there still is not enough.  DGG ( talk ) 17:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, a WP:BEFORE search shows no WP:RS meaning the subject does not pass the WP:GNG. The sources in the article trivially mention the subject or are ad landing pages with no relation to the subject. -KAP03(Talk &bull;&#32;Contributions &bull;&#32;Email) 17:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Also the other page TechExcel ServiceWise seems to have similar problems to the TechExcel page as there are no WP:RS to make the TechExcel ServiceWise page notable. -KAP03(Talk &bull;&#32;Contributions &bull;&#32;Email) 17:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages. I wouldn't object to using G4 recreation, on both of them, considering the previous deletions. I suggest that if deleted all these be salted against recreation. DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The links for the other page: -KAP03(Talk &bull;&#32;Contributions &bull;&#32;Email) 17:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:05, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:05, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:05, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:05, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete for lack of notability. Alexius08 (talk) 22:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(Talk &bull;&#32;Contributions &bull;&#32;Email) 22:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * delete advertisements, not Wikipedia articles. Fails GNG Jytdog (talk) 00:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH -- HighKing ++ 15:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. This article may have the same problem as the original PerfectDisk article that was deleted (and which I recreated by starting with a Google Translate of the Japanese article's deleted rewrite. The original/deleted (English) PerfectDisk, which I got from Google Cache, was actually worse (in the promo sense) than this article. For now, someone else can take a turn at a rewrite... (and yes, it would be harder than what I did, since I had the Translate). Notable? Years ago, I seem to recall getting lots of bulk-mail/"junk"mail from them and I read some of it and thought it could be useful, but $$$. One suggestion: Leave the entry in Comparison_of_issue-tracking_systems, since that's a service to readers - just ensure that if the article is deleted, no RedLink by removing the DoubleSquareBrackets. I'm not saying delete, even though I see a major difference here: TechExcel seems like its about promo. TNT? There's enough in the article-cited https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2009/08/03/smallb1.html?page=all for half a stub. Pi314m (talk) 06:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete no WP:CORPDEPTH, recreation shows adamancy to promote this non notable company. Clear violation of WP:PROMO –Ammarpad (talk) 11:57, 28 October 2017 (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.