Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axway (2nd nomination)

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. Not quite sure this merits salting - if it pops up again, speedy+salt for sure. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Axway

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

Article re-created after a prior deletion discussion resulted in speedy deletion as unambigous advertising.

This version is also unambiguous advertising that's written deliberately vaguely and can't be improved with editing (a global software company that provides multi-enterprise solutions and business-to-business (B2B) integration applications for the financial services, healthcare, automotive, retail/CPG, logistics/transportation, and government industries. Axway’s solutions feature a flexible integration and B2B framework, analytics, services and customized applications, and many of these solutions are available in a software-as-a-service (SaaS) model.)

I am uncertain whether this business is notable, but it is referenced only to a directory listing, and an initial Google News search brings forth only press releases on the first several pages. Notable or not, the current text is both unacceptable and unimprovable as written. Recommend protection against re-creation. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 13:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 13:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable secondary sources WP:RS to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Googling, I was only able to find routine, uncritical coverage of the subject's press releases. I agree with nom that the article appears deliberately vague and offers little hope of improvement. Wikipedia is not for WP:PROMOTION. Msnicki (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Press releases do not equal significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 23:08, 21 September 2011 (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.