Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ETouch Systems (2nd nomination)

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ETouch Systems

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

Delete and Salt considering the 2 deletions in 2006, which were both G11 and G12, before the AfD happened which actualy says something since it was 2006. Literally a damniningly blatant advertisement with none of it actually convincing notability, actual significance or substance, and I believe I myself had been watching this for some time, and the history is self-explanatory with clear advertising, not the "Etouch.india" account with another user, Vivek, all clearly some apparent overseas set of employees.

I myself in the past have largely simply not considered any AfDs from that time to be convincing unless they actually showed and noticed a blatant advertisement (even in that's time's standards), because simply actually looking at the 2006 comments shows triviality such as "Notable - has a large client list" or "Article has sources - notable". SwisterTwister talk 23:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The G11 and G12 have no relevance. A delete for copyvio tells nothing about the topic, and the G11 was a mistake that was reverted. Unscintillating (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not seeing a problem here. Article has existed since 2006, and the company has existed since 1998. It has already passed muster at AfD. It is not an advertisement, and nomination has not provided examples of problems. There is a version of the article on the talk page that better describes its role with NASA. Topic is covered by Bloomberg, which in my experience is a good correlation with Wikipedia notability. Here is an in-depth review about a failure of the company. Unscintillating (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The fact this has been deleted before as G11 and G12 is serious enough as it is and the fact this has persisted as a blatant advertisement is a concern alone, suggesting the company has existed for 10 years is not relevant for countering the cocerns, and simply being a stock-listed company means nothing, because there have been numerous AfDs for stock-listed companies closed as delete. The fact there was literally a company-named account and a company employee are the exact concerns, and there's nothing to suggest we should accept it as such, especially if that would only influence and encourage such blatancy. When we start considering advertisements as acceptable articles, we're entirely damned.

Because I myself have also noted the listed information and sources are not convincing either and should not be mistaken as such. Noted that it worked with NASA is also not convincing because there's no connections, regardless of who it is, to inherit automatic notability, and once again, considering the company literally used this article as advertising, that alone is damning enough, as is the fact people in the past actually called this article acceptable because of sheer claims of "company has clients, notable", "at least it has sources, that's enough" and "we can keep articles because of their clients".SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 10:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the idea that anyone would come across this article and be minded to go and buy something from this company as a result is ludicrous, the subject simply does not appear notable enough for inclusion. --Michig (talk) 10:46, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't find this company meets WP:CORP. A small private company with little coverage in reliable independent sources. I didn't find anything I would consider in-depth. MB 05:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:50, 8 November 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.