Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zagace

Zagace

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

Appears to fail WP:NCORP. Relatively new startup company. Only passing mention in sources. PROD declined without explanation by article creator. Safiel (talk) 18:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this is not a new startup company. the previous article that was deleted had more citations. it has been a subject of various media all over the world for a long time now. a quick google search can show the same. the comments of sabiel are libelious and there are clear and valid citations. yes its a new company but its a valid encyclopedic content — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ierierie (talk • contribs) 01:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the source of information on this company is those articles that clearly when put together are a topic of encyclopedic content. not some random advertisements written on grounds that are dumbfounded — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ierierie (talk • contribs) 01:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the content about this article is related to an individual and the citations are valid for the content posted in the article. i dont understand how a new startup company cannot meet encyclopedi content — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ierierie (talk • contribs) 02:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - no reliable 3rd party sources found for this company. Cotton2 (talk) 09:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the links posted have reliable sources of information consistent with the content of the article. the source of this information is those articles. thats why its a topic in the first place. aren't forbes reliable? aren't business insider? these are provable links with information sufficient to have the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ierierie (talk • contribs) 11:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove contest of deletion- the links include news and publications from persons whose opinions are third party to warrant a valid source of information on the article. all those articles are not from one person. so saying no 3rd party sources doesnt make any sense at all.a company is run by people who sell opinions and provide information to third parties. and in this case third parties have verified the information by having information on the same in various links and news articles which they have published. how is that not 3rd party?

I checked the reference from Forbes, it's barely a mention of anything, but what's there is not about Zagace. Please review WP:RS to understand why these references do not make the grade as reliable detailed 3rd party references. Please sign your posts with 4 tildes (~). Cotton2 (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove contest of deletion-the article has a statement Zagace, which has raised funding from local investors, is a cloud enterprise software that helps companies manage inventory such as accounting, payroll, stock management, marketing and many more all bundled in a simple and easy to use format called Zag apps. similar to what is on the article. this is written by a forbes staff by the name kerry dolan. and this is contained in the first paragraph after the first picture appearing on the page. forbes staff is a third party and credible source. The content of this article has the same exact wording. how is this not reliable? are you even reading this?Ierierie (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]