Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SwaaS Systems

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. —SpacemanSpiff 07:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SwaaS Systems

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

Non-notable organization. Nothing significant than some company like over thousands in the world. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a directory for companies like this. All awards are questionable and non-notable entries. Light2021 (talk) 07:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I fail to see anything that would help subject meet the WP:CORPDEPTH standard. And kudos to nominator for finding yet another piece. Anup [Talk] 03:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - text is promotional ("DrBond is the best knowledge-sharing and networking companion for every thinking doctor." is not quite what I would think of as Wikipedia style), coverage is promotional, quasi-RS coverage is promotional, this is a big advertisement - David Gerard (talk) 10:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as the listed information is by far advertising what to there is know about the company and its activities, the sources also then amount to PR as they were clearly company-supplied information, nothing else, let alone convincing. SwisterTwister talk 19:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; nothing but "corporate spam". K.e.coffman (talk) 19:24, 1 October 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.