Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SiPaaS

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. Deor (talk) 11:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SiPaaS

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

Poorly sourced article about a non-notable product. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 14:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—I can confirm that this is a trademark of VeriSilicon Holdings Co., Ltd., but beyond that I'm not seeing anything in the way of WP:RS. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's simply an attempt at SEO for VeriSilicon Holdings. Note the recent speedy deletion of VeriSilicon Holdings Co., Ltd. (July 9) immediately followed by the creation VeriSilicon and then two days later SiPaaS. I've looked briefly at the company article. In my experience, virtually every article on WP about a company that not publicly traded on a major stock exchange and which has not received extensive in-depth coverage in the mainstream press or highly regarded financial publications, e.g. Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, was written either by a company employee or by a paid editor, and will show all the hallmarks of it, as that one does. Nothing but press releases cited as sources and reference "padding" with articles that either do not mention the company at all, mention it it only in passing, or are PR planted interviews. Voceditenore (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a thoroughly non-notable product. Perhaps if it catches on and becomes a success the article can be restored, but for now it doesn't meet the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:30, 20 July 2014 (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.