Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ClusterTech Limited

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ClusterTech Limited

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

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

This is an IT company based in Hong Kong. I believe it doesn't meet WP:GNG. As a tech company, it has web presence but very little that would qualify as in-depth significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. For instance, let's examine the references currently in the article. We have a press release, a podcast since removed by Matthew hk because it "fails to verify the content" (I can't tell since it's in Chinese), an article written by the company's marketing department, a listing, another listing, an article written by who knows who that does not mention the company at all. That leaves us with one reference that shows the company won a not-particularly-notable industry prize and the document only lists the awardees so once again there is no depth in coverage. Pichpich (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CSD#G11 material as well as failing WP:GNG. None of the citation are in-depth about the company. Also high likely a paid editing by the creator Colepoon. Matthew hk (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I looked through the citations in the article and can confirm the nom's assessment of them. Couldn't find any substantial independent coverage on Google either. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 19:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - material fails WP:GNG. - MA Javadi (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2019 (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.