Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xpressdocs

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Xpressdocs

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

Plenty of press releases but no substantial coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG, WP:CORP. Largoplazo (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 22:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear advertising, with the information, sources and history all emphasizing it, all or alone are enough for delete. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Searches on the name return some coverage for what appears to be an unrelated product from Compliance Xpressware, though that may have been subsequently renamed as CXConvert. AllyD (talk) 08:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Aside from the many press releases, I can see enough to verify this as a company going about its business, but not to establish it as being of encyclopaedic notability, whether by WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear advertising only bias, no evidence of WP:CORP being satisfied. Ajf773 (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2017 (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.