Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inoxoft

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. ✗plicit 23:55, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inoxoft

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Inoxoft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Likely to fail WP:NCORP KH-1 (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:27, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete on the strength (or rather weakness) of the sources. BD2412 T 23:41, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Unable to satisfy WP:NCORP. References are just passing mentions or self published. Bakhtar40 (talk) 05:44, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Clutch.co is a well-known and trusted platform for evaluating IT service providers, and Inoxoft’s high ranking there shows its strong reputation and credibility in the industry. Combined with its international client base, this highlights the company’s notability. FactoidSeeker (talk) 15:58, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is an awkward one. While Clutch.co may well be trustworthy/usable/independent from a potential client perspective, they are probably not usable as a reliable source from an en-wiki perspective for the purposes of meeting WP:NCORP -- clutch.co reviews are sourced from generally identified/identifiable clients of the relevant companies, and clutch have a business relationship with the company being verified. (See [1] for their FAQ) ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:31, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The most significant coverage I can find is in the Forbes Ukraine article cited in the article, but even that is just a few sentences and wouldn't meet WP:SIGCOV in my view [2] FozzieHey (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Seems to fail WP:CORP -- the URL comes up in some academic studies, and there have been a couple tiny news outlets to mention it in passing, but that seems to be it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhinchey (talk • contribs) 06:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:CORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:20, 23 February 2025 (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.