Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurigo Software

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 speedily deleted under criterion G11 (with Balaji Sreenivasan deleted under G8). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aurigo Software

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

This is a highly promotional article about what appears to be a company that does not meet notability requirements. The article was written by editors with a declared or suspected COI. Most of the references fall into several categories: 1) closely associated with the subject such as aurigo.com and LinkedIn profiles, press releases by the company, 2) dead links, and 3) links that contain no information about the company. A related article about the company's CEO, Balaji Sreenivasan, which has similar issues is currently listed for speedy deletion. Deli nk (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin. If this is deleted, please also delete Balaji Sreenivasan as G8, as I have redirected it here. Black Kite (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Appears to have coverage in reliable sources but the Wire sources need to be dialled down and it largely rewritten from scratch to rid of possible promotional writing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Dr. Blofeld, for trimming the article significantly to remove promotional content. The article is now referenced to 3 dead links, and a regurgitation of an Aurigo press release - insufficient to establish notability, in my opinion. Deli nk (talk) 19:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as it is currently it should be deleted, but I think enough could be gleaned from some better sources to make it stick. I'll look more into it tomorrow but am always relunctant to work much on something where there is obvious paid editing work at play.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: would it be a good idea to update your vote? it's still listed as "keep". K.e.coffman (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- typical advertorial and replica of a corporate web site; "Customer and Success Stories" is especially telling. The sources are otherwise insufficient to meet GNG and not up to the level of CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 14:00, 9 August 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.