Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZenQ

ZenQ

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

PROD boldly removed by someone who I presume is from the company and I still confirm this PROD since it also emphasized the obvious advertising intentions and actions of this article, and this random IP's actions confirm it. SwisterTwister talk 18:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTADVERT & WP:NCORP Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whoa, firstly I'm not "from the company". Secondly I have no idea what the rest of that sentence means (try English maybe?). Apart from the baseless COI accusations against me and the article creator, you have made ZERO policy-based arguments for the deletion of this article. I happened to notice that you have PROD'ed quite a few articles in the last few days, some of which have been DEPROD'ed and rightly so. Your PROD'ing spree appears to be disruptive to the project. 1.39.61.211 (talk) 19:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, simply stating that sources exist when I have explicitly counted and analyzed then to be PR, is therefore not applicable. Also, the fact this was so boldly removed with "presumptive and absurd" nomination was questionable in itself. My PROD explicitly stated that everything here is PR and searches are finding the same, it's all either what the company wants to advertise about itself or what the company published itself. Next, continuing personal attacks of me and this nomination are not convincing. Bring an obvious advertisement and removing is exactly the best interests of this encyclopedia, regardleds of what your thoughts of thid nomination or me are. SwisterTwister talk 19:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete no evidence of news coverage not from a PR push - David Gerard (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Newspaper articles/sources mostly covers trivial matters. The coverage is not wide enough to warrant a stand alone article and it fails the notability test as per WP:CORP vivek7de--tAlK 18:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]