Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InvoiceBerry

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) 19:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

InvoiceBerry

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

Obvious spam of a non-notable company/software that is excluded by both criteria of WP:N: it fails in receiving substantial coverage that is intellectually independent and it also fails WP:NOT as a promotional directory listing. All the sourcing that exists is your typical press release churn, top 10 lists, and trade press, and get no real coverage of the likes that we typically expect of companies. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)}01:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)}01:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)}01:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost a speedy case here. I could find no coverage that would demonstrate notability. AusLondonder (talk) 08:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If it were an article about the company and not the software, it would be A7 eligible, IMO. When it was created, the article was specifically about the software. I don't personally buy the startup/software distinctions (its like saying there is a difference between Uber the app and Uber the firm), but enough people on en.wiki do make a distinction that I thought it worth sending to AfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:58, 25 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.