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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saasu[edit]

Saasu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Basically advertising. Even the article in the Australian is a pure advertorial from the beginning to end, and none of the references are any better. Advertorials are not a RS for notable , no matter where published. DGG ( talk ) 19:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The stories in The Age and the SMH provide only passing coverage of this company and as noted in the nomination statement the story in The Australian is an obvious advertorial and so not a RS. The other references are to specialist sites, and aren't very useful for establishing notability. As such, WP:ORG isn't met. Nick-D (talk) 00:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - weak Does not meet current GNG or NSUBJECT/s. However, is this a test of our current NGs? The subject matter clearly has reasonable penetration in its context, with a range of third parties now being involved. Perhaps TOOSOON might be a better reason for not keeping it? Aoziwe (talk) 12:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nom Light2021 (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- "minor tech company" spam. Having 20 employees strongly suggests that it's WP:TOOSOON for this subject to have an article. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - [1] looks stronger as a reference than anything else here (it appears to be part of an independent test of that sort of accounting software, but by itself that's not enough, and the existing refs are largely reprinted PR. WP:CORPDEPTH just isn't met here yet. --joe decker^talk 07:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:TOOSOON Minor Company fails WP:NCORP --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 00:36, 17 January 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.