Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AppsFreedom

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. Tone 17:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AppsFreedom

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

Created by now-blocked sock, of an incredible prolific sockfarm [1] but G5 does not apply because it was created before the master was blocked.

Non notable company. Ref 1 is a mention, Ref 2 and 3 are mentions in a list of multiple of new companies in a local area published in a local newspaper, ref. 4 is a one sentence mention in a large general article., ref 5 is straight PR. In my experience eWeek from the start in 1983 has been very open to the publication of press releases --( In the 80s I let them send me a controlled circ subscription, because in my job at the time, I needed to see relevant press releases. Press releases have a genuine often-constructive purpose, but not in an encyclopedia ) DGG ( talk ) 23:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's already one strike against this article, as it was created under false pretences by a sockmaster. The second strike is the lack of significant coverage. Most of the coverage I've found online are announcements that AppsFreedom has obtained funding from investors. A page from the website MobileVillage seemed like a possible source until I discovered that MobileVillage offers "help with your company’s own publicity needs". About the best I could find was this article from CIO Magazine, but there still isn't enough coverage to prove notability. Altamel (talk) 01:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as entirely PR, the information and sources; nothing here amounts to anything at all close to substance. SwisterTwister talk 02:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no indications of notability nor significant RS coverage to meet GNG and CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per others. More spam... Citobun (talk) 10:15, 28 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.