Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keyrus

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keyrus

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

Promotional article for a company lacking notability. All listed references are to company related websites except possibly one which is in French. The majority of edits in last several years are by one editor who has not edited any other articles, therefore neutrality is in doubt. Did not find secondary coverage with an internet search. MB (talk) 02:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article doesn't really look much like advertising as far I am concerned. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 04:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite what VegasCasinoKid wrote above, this article begins with overt and explicit advertising language:

"An international player in consulting and technologies and a specialist in Data and Digital, Keyrus is dedicated to helping enterprises take advantage of the Data and Digital paradigm to enhance their performance, facilitating and accelerating their transformation, and generating new drivers of growth, competitiveness, and sustainability."

My gosh. No neutral encyclopedia writer would churn out marketing jargon like that. If the company is actually notable, produce the independent reliable sources that prove notability and eliminate the marketing language, describing the company from the neutral point of view. Otherwise, the article should be deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the article can be rewritten so it doesn't look like advertising, but consensus is consensus so if this article gets deleted, I'm not offended in the least. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a shocking breach of WP:PROMO and WP:N. A cursory google search reveals that apart from sites affiliated with the subject, this article is the only one on the subject. Dschslava (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches are simply not finding convincingly enough, simply a few expected links. SwisterTwister talk 22:03, 25 March 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.