Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PangeaMT

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PangeaMT

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

Searching for sources results only in press releases or brief mentions in news reports. I couldn't find sources actually about the platform. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PangeaMT is a translation platform with 3 academic articles at the American Association for machine translation (1) (a2010.amtaweb.org/AMTA/papers/4-04-HerranzYusteEtal.pdf) and the Asian Association (2 .info/english/journal/journal52-e.htm and http://www.aamt.info/english/journal/journal50-e.htm). PangeaMT is a tool! We are also part of EU research (http:www.expert-itn.eu). We have not finished editing the article! This article is not spam at all, please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mherranz (talk • contribs) 12:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article may not be promotional in tone, but the company hasn't been covered in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This fails WP:GNG. There is hardly any coverage in independent/third-party secondary sources. I was only able to find press releases such as this. Not notable at all. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:25, 30 June 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.