Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opace

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) 05:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opace

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

Article is written only for promotional and advertising purposes. References are very poor. References are merely blog written on various media by affiliates of company. No significant coverage by independent media. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here. does not meet notability criteria. Light21 13:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete as it stands terrible sourcing that would see it culled to maybe a paragraph under WP:RS - David Gerard (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A poorly-sourced article lack substantial 3rd party references about the firm. Nor are my searches identifying anything better to suggest that this is more than a firm going about its business. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are enough reliable sources available to establish notability, including this and this. Adaksntarni (talk) 08:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the first of those says right at the top that it is literally a press release, I hope you won't take it amiss that I must point out that your understanding of WP:RS appears to be inadequate - David Gerard (talk) 13:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find any WP:RS that substantially cover this company. Most hits are just press releases. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO & no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:55, 26 September 2016 (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.