Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenAgent (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OpenAgent

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

non notable, and promotional, Every references here is either just an announcement of funding, or a placement on a list along with dozens of other companies, or a mention, or from the company itself. Such references do not meet WP:NCORP DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 05:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 05:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 05:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find very little other than marketing and some routine funding announcements. Not enough for notability. The subject's founders/principals are possibly notable, but their company does not inherit. Aoziwe (talk) 12:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Startup which seems to be doing well, but nowhere is there the kind of coverage which Wikipedia notability requires. (This comes somewhere near to qualifying for speedy deletion under a couple of criteria, but perhaps not quite under either of them. It is very similar in charcter to the article deleted at the previous deletion discussion, though by no means identical, making G4 (recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion) dubious; it is unmistakably promotional, in my opinion borderline for G11, and I think many administrators, less cautious than DGG, might have gone for that.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have removed any references to the company itself and have also made the Services section less promotional. References to any insignificant lists have been removed. The remaining lists that the company have appeared on and awards the company have won are quite notable in Australia. In the startup ecosystem in Australia, OpenAgent is comparable to Expert360, hipages and Canva. I'm happy to make any further changes or find more notable references. BabushkaApothecary (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have removed some references, but the objection was that there was a lack of suitable references. Removing references, whether good ones or bad ones, can never make up for an absence of good ones. There is now even less in the way of sourcing than there was before. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:51, 3 April 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.