Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RAD Software

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. MBisanz ^talk 02:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RAD Software

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

I just declined a speedy deletion nomination as sources supporting notability are not needed to avoid WP:A7, but I've just reviewed the sources and they're seriously wanting. A lot of them are dead links, but of those that are active we have...

The company's own site.
A Highbeam link that I can't read beyond the opening (https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-61207845.html), but it looks like it's just a press release - hopefully someone with Highbeam access can confirm or refute.
An article in The Scotsman (http://www.scotsman.com/business/companies/radical-approach-to-finding-the-right-it-system-1-528332) which reads like PR material.

And that's it - using Google, I can't find any reliable independent coverage to support notability. All I can find are primary sources and lots of hits on the generic terminology. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Echoing the nominator's rationale, I cannot find any reliable, third-party sources for this company. It also stinks of a COI; it was written by an editor whose only contributions were to this article (and all but one in the span of five minutes) nearly five years ago, it reads like a promotion piece, virtually of the content is either listing the company's products or its clients, and it references primary sources and dead links. Thanks, - A Texas Historian (Questions?) 11:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. TimothyJosephWood 13:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PR piece (who else talks about 'business verticals'?) about a software retailer. Looks like a directory entry, plugging their stock range. Peridon (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasons at Talk:RAD_Software#This_article.27s_sources_are_garbage.2C_probably_promotional. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, I hadn't spotted that - nice review of the sources. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a non-notable corporation. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with other thoughts on being non-notable and full of PR material Callsignpink (talk) 20:10, 6 August 2016 (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.