Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allvue Systems

Allvue Systems

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed draftification, albeit with some work. Had this been left as a draft it might have been improved after further recommendations. WP:ADMASQ, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, fails WP:NCORP. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Companies, Computing, and United States of America. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was in the middle of bringing this here, but Timtrent beat me to it! Pure ADMASQ, sources are just press release regurgitations and the like, and a search finds only more of the same. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:59, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing If only the editors involved in creating material like this listened during the AFC review process AfD would not be troubled so often with inappropriate unilateral moves. That one may do a thing does not mean one should. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:05, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't realise the process is it's kept in drafts as edits are done, I've moved it back now, would you be able to link me to the page that explains how you get reviews done in the draftspace? Squaumau (talk) 14:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we should interpret that as a request by Squaumau to Draftify the article.

To further your knowledge, Squaumau, I suggest you go to WP:TEAHOUSE, where you may ask all the questions you wish, or as an alternative to WP:AFCHD. Pick one or the other, but not both, please. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete pending a review of the sources (which I might or might not do). On its face, there are notability and tone concerns. The article is written from the corporation's viewpoint, and does not report on what third parties have said, but that is the basis of corporate notability. The article is blatantly promotional, and its author has been asked about conflict of interest, and has not yet had time to answer. The article was moved into draft space by a reviewer, but moved back to article space by the author, which is permitted, but does not indicate collaboration. The author then attempted to move the article back to draft space after it was nominated for deletion. That is gaming the system, but that is a conduct issue, and AFD is a content forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]