Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Addverb 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 no consensus‎. I am closing this due to the issues identified, but explicitly without prejudice to re-nomination by a user in good standing at any time. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addverb Technologies

[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)

The article on Addverb Technologies does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organizations as outlined in WP:ORG. Despite being a legitimate robotics and automation company, the article lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources necessary to establish notability.

Most of the cited references are press releases, primary sources, or niche industry publications that fail to provide in-depth, independent analysis of the company. This contravenes Wikipedia's requirements under WP:RS. The article also demonstrates a promotional tone, focusing excessively on achievements and partnerships without balanced, independent critique, thereby breaching WP:NPOV.

Additionally, the editing history and the language used suggest potential issues of Undisclosed Paid Editing (UPE) or conflict of interest. Such concerns further undermine the neutrality and reliability of the article.

~~Without significant, independent, and reliable sources to establish the company's notability, the article fails to justify its inclusion on Wikipedia and should be considered for deletion.~~--Jaypung (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC) (globally blocked editor, tagged as LTA Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Stop copy-pasting responses from AI tools and pretending you're from Australia. Did you really review all the sources thoroughly before nominating this article or you just sent it here because you wanted it deleted? Wikipedia does not work according to your wishes.

Please explain how "Most of the cited references are press releases or primary sources", and how this article "demonstrates a promotional tone, focusing excessively on achievements and partnerships" Kalingajija (talk) 14:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per the nomination. 3, 8 and 4, 17 and duplicate references. Taabii (talk) 07:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Taabii, If there are duplicate references in the article, it does not mean the page should be deleted. I have fixed all the duplicate references. This is a bad-faith nomination. The nominator is an SPA/sock account desperately trying to delete this page and created the account just for this purpose. They are simply wasting the community's time. The article has numerous secondary independent sources that show significant coverage. Kalingajija (talk) 14:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kalingajija If the nominator is a sock, kindly start an investigation to get them blocked. I just commented what I understand. Thanks. Taabii (talk) 14:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please elaborate on why this article should be deleted? If duplicate references were your concern for the deletion vote, I have fixed all the duplicate references. Kalingajija (talk) 14:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. TYPEINFO (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note to reviewing admin: This is a bad-faith nomination by an SPA/sock account desperately trying to delete this page. Jaypung first PROD'd it and when it was contested, they moved it to draft. After a senior admin opposed their draft move, they brought it to this deletion discussion. Jaypung claims to be from "Australia" and "an active Wikipedia contributor" on their user page. However, they created this account only a few days ago and after making three minor edits, they began pursuing the agenda for which they joined Wikipedia. They further state on their user page that their goal is "enhancing articles with well-researched content and proper citations." However, they have made only nine minor edits, if deletion discussion edits are excluded.Kalingajija (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Quite a well-known company. The article includes numerous significant sources and there are plenty of others online like 1, 2, [1], 4. Kalingajija (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only reliable source seems to be this link. Rest all the other sources just cover regular announcements WP:ROUTINE and lack WP:CORPDEPTH. Charlie (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.