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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zentail[edit]

Zentail (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)

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
1	Affiliated partner.	~ For basic info, yes; for claims of notability, no.	Not really, just gives a short corporate summary and a link to their website.	✘ No
2	Affiliated seed accelerator.	~ Ditto.	One line and a link to their website isn't significant.	✘ No
3	Self-published.	~ For an albeit flowery product description, yes; for claims of notability of said product, no.	By virtue of being self-published.	✘ No
4	Completely unrelated.	Press release.	Does not mention Zentail at all.	✘ No
5	Self-published.	~ For basic info, yes; for claims of notability, no.	By virtue of being self-published.	✘ No
6	No apparent affiliation.	? The source appears to be a mixture of an esoteric publication and a blog.	The post heavily relies on Zentail to make a point about the type of software and the industry as a whole.	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

The above source analysis seems to suggest that Zentail has not garnered the requisite depth of coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources to be considered notable as a company. SITH (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are several other sources of news about this company, although I feel the article lacks enough references. This article can therefore be improved upon, and as it meets the basic WP:GNG it should be retained.--AfPEN (talk) 09:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  User blocked for undisclosed paid advocacy. MER-C 09:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Insufficient substantive independent sources. Reywas92^Talk 00:09, 30 March 2019 (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.