Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centina 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Centina Systems

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

I do not see how the available references show notability;; there was p previous speedy tag added in bad faith by an ed. whose article was rejected , but it still merits discussion DGG ( talk ) 19:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 20:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 20:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 20:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Declines the speedy as it was bad faith, and there was kind of a claim of notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP though. Joseph2302 20:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as certainly advertising with only saying what there is to advertise about the company; the history shows this was clearly simply started as an advertisement campaign, nothing else suggesting otherwise at all, certainly not substance at all. SwisterTwister talk 20:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: My searches return routine announcements about deployment of this firm's products (noting false positives from other firms' products also named vSure), but I am not seeing the substantial coverage needed for WP:CORPDEPTH, nor are the listed awards sufficiently specific to be notable in themselves. AllyD (talk) 07:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam about 100% likely to have been created by a paid editor, which is against policy. With content such as "The Company focuses on helping businesses worldwide assure ..." this is strictly a investor and client prospectus. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:36, 10 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.