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. Ged UK 13:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Touchtalent

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Weakly sourced promotional article fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Undeclared paid editing contracted on f****r.com Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The coverage offered as references is typical start-up propositional coverage, as was noted by User:TheLongTone in the AfD at end-2013. There is a seed funding announcement from mid 2014 [1] and a Highbeam search turns up one subsequent item in the Hindustan Times ([2], subscription reqd) - indeed three times - but it is unsigned and appears to be press-release-based. I am not seeing anything to meet WP:CORPDEPTH and no reason to overturn the January 2014 AfD decision. AllyD (talk) 07:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Still no credible evidence of notability: once again this article has been recreated by somebody who is one of the founders of theis company, whose only activity on WP is related to this company, eg spamlinking in other articles.14:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Keep. While my reflexive instinct is to tag this with a G4 speedy due to questionable editor antics, in my opinion the company itself has quickly become a notable presence.[3][4] [5] - and those are just from a quick glance at the news link above. Pax 08:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in response to Pax, I would note that two of those three refs listed were already out there the last time this article went to AfD. At that time, the community decided to delete it. So there is only one new ref mentioned here, and that is a routine notice of seed funding--not something that would help for WP:CORPDEPTH. Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With respect to the sources given by Pax, two don't look reliable, the third appears to be routine (e.g., reprinted press release.) CORPDEPTH appears lacking. --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Although the refs look like they aren't notable, it looks like people actually know about Touchtalent. Ack! Ack! Pasta bomb! (talk) 02:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete At first glance, there's a significant amount of media coverage, but going through it, it mostly appears to be brief mentions in half a sentence or press release stuff. If someone came up with more substantial mentions, I could change my mind on this one. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and Joe Deckar Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and lacks Reliable references .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2015 (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.