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. MER-C 04:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kaseya[edit]

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

Promotional article substantially written by SPAs that doesn't appear to meet WP:NCORP. Basic WP:BEFORE shows PR-inspired coverage and little else. Tagged for notability since 2012 without improvement. Has been multiply deleted previously, including dying at PROD. David Gerard (talk) 14:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt as this has been a damn advertisement for each of the 4 times it's been deleted since 2007, and there's nothing at all suggesting we should continue tolerating it, especially when so blatant; take the current article for example where it not only lists the PR information and activities but also literally all specifics there to know about the things and events the company has involved itself with. The article also then speaks for itself by having an enormous amount of quickly "new" accounts and their own contributions are never actually substantial apart from simply adding company information, self-explanatory of course. This was unbelievable accepted in January 2012 but the causes for that was not only the mistakes and damages AfC itself had at the time by not acknowledging advertisements or simply compromising by accepting half-authored advertisements; now we have a choice and especially when it involves such blatant deletions in the past, therefore there are seriously nearly no chances of an acceptable article because of the numerous PR advertising attempts, outweighing anything at all to suggest this would amount to convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam; strictly advertorial. Salt too until such time that the subject becomes noted by independent reliable sources. For now, nothing stands out about this company. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:57, 22 October 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.