Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EnVerid 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) 19:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EnVerid Systems

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

Obvious spam created by an account trying to game the ACTRIAL requirements, likely in violation of the TOU. On top of that it utterly fails WP:N, all the sourcing is press releases excluded towards counting towards notability by WP:SPIP and WP:ORGIND. Other sourcing is typical industry press, which we usually count as a recycled press release lacking in intellectual independence. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Couldn't have expressed the arguments for deletion more cogently. All sources are industry-related and promotional; nothing found in Google searches reflecting any independent review of this company or its product. As one source states "The ultimate goal of the project is to overcome market hesitancy that stands in the way of widespread adoption, by creating a critical mass of success stories across different regions and building types." Wikipedia should not be used as part of that process. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Spam masquerading as an article. All coverage fails WP:CORPDEPTH. shoy (reactions) 20:58, 6 October 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.