Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZenQ


 * 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. Sole keep !vote is not addressing the concerns about notability and the like. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

ZenQ

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

PROD boldly removed by someone who I presume is from the company and I still confirm this PROD since it also emphasized the obvious advertising intentions and actions of this article, and this random IP's actions confirm it. SwisterTwister  talk  18:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOTADVERT & WP:NCORP Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Whoa, firstly I'm not "from the company". Secondly I have no idea what the rest of that sentence means (try English maybe?). Apart from the baseless COI accusations against me and the article creator, you have made ZERO policy-based arguments for the deletion of this article. I happened to notice that you have PROD'ed quite a few articles in the last few days, some of which have been DEPROD'ed and rightly so. Your PROD'ing spree appears to be disruptive to the project. 1.39.61.211 (talk) 19:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No, simply stating that sources exist when I have explicitly counted and analyzed then to be PR, is therefore not applicable. Also, the fact this was so boldly removed with "presumptive and absurd" nomination was questionable in itself. My PROD explicitly stated that everything here is PR and searches are finding the same, it's all either what the company wants to advertise about itself or what the company published itself. Next, continuing personal attacks of me and this nomination are not convincing. Bring an obvious advertisement and removing is exactly the best interests of this encyclopedia, regardleds of what your thoughts of thid nomination or me are. SwisterTwister   talk  19:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * delete no evidence of news coverage not from a PR push - David Gerard (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Newspaper articles/sources mostly covers trivial matters. The coverage is not wide enough to warrant a stand alone article and it fails the notability test as per WP:CORP  vivek7de  --tAlK 18:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-Notable yet. Many companies like this are in operations. Coverage is nothing "Serious" or in-depth in nature. Even they are from Big Media Companies. Light2021 (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Not Notable yet. Numerous companies like this are operating. The coverage is not wide enough to warrant a stand alone article and it fails the notability test as per WP:CORP. Aru@baska ❯❯❯  Vanguard 14:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- a WP:PROMO article on an unremarkable company. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:48, 17 October 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.