Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MyOutDesk

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MyOutDesk

[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)

This is essentially a product advertisement that fails NCORP. There is some coverage, but the vast majority of it looks like paid junk. --- Possibly (talk) 03:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 03:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 03:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 03:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 03:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Cut the promotional stuff and there might be a salvageable article there, though some of the sources are also weak (one is a blog). Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 03:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails
WP:NCORP
. I've expanded the refs so that it is easier for us to see what we're dealing with. Five out of the 14 references are interviews with the founders. One is a self-published book by one of the founders. The RingCentral pieces are by a business partner so these are not independent.

Most of the other pieces are short reviews, mere mentions or likely paid-for journalism.

Notability would have to hinge on the piece in the Sacramento Business Journal, which is unfortunately behind a paywall, and the three paragraphs in the TechRadar review - which would pass the independence test but I would not consider to be 'substantial' coverage.

While not a reason for deletion in itself, the article comes across as promotional, with several paragraphs that should be deleted if the article was to remain. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To see the Sacramento Business Journal article, you can check the source code. Here is a copy of it for those of you who can't see it because of the paywall: (Redacted) Lopnursands (talk) 00:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)— Lopnursands (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Yes, it's promotional in tone but it also fails WP:NCORP. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the point Safe Charmer made. Regards. JayzBox (talk) 07:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Sacramento Business Journal is a credible publication and has an in-depth article. Along with all other news, it meets
WP:GNG. Salvageable article, and I can work with editors to improve the way it's written, but overall MyOutDesk is notable VA software. Lopnursands (talk) 00:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)— Lopnursands (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]

The Sacramento Business Journal story is in the SBJ section "Commercial Real Estate ". It's about them buying a building, and says little about the company itself. --- Possibly (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2021 (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.