Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vocalocity

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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vocalocity

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

There is no information in the article that shows the notability of the company as per Wikipedia guidelines WP:CORP.There is not much in the body of the article that is encyclopedic in nature other than promotional stuff about services of an ordinary company would offer from day to day.The references are mainly interviews of people affiliated with the organization which would not be a neutral of view, additionally, they are majorly press releases which fail WP:RS Aha... (talk) 08:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Aha... (talk) 08:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Aha... (talk) 08:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Aha... (talk) 08:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 10:10, 31 December 2015 (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/2015 December 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now likely as none of this suggests solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteas per nom after I have reviewed the references which barely touch on the subject independently. Kagundu^{Wanna Chat?} 08:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete Found no independent reliable sources and of the sources on the article most are dead links. The WP article doesn't satisfy all Wikipedia policies or at least meeting the threshold of WP:GNG Kansiime (talk) 06:50, 7 January 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.