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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kayako (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Article adds no Encyclopedia Value. It is not a bloomberg business profile or directory for business promotions. There is nothing significant about this company. Light2021 (talk) 08:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- strictly WP:PROMO content on an unremarkable minor tech company. Copy includes advertising, such as:

• In August 2009, Kayako announced the availability of cost-free full licenses for charities and open-source software projects.

No value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable. WP:Corp applies; promo piece. Kierzek (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep  Our policies and guidelines are designed so that notability is defined outside of Wikipedia, not by Wikipedia editors.  We are here to build an encyclopedia that is the sum of human knowledge.  The article here has a list of good references that satisfy WP:GNG.  Obviously a company in both India and UK satisfies WP:AUD.  If there were any problem with advertising or promotion, this would show as a lack of NPOV, which does not appear to be a problem.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a company merely existing in two countries is not at all a convincing sign of notability and there has never been a case of AfD of solely keeping by that basis alone, and nor should we because that would mean literally damning ourselves by accepting the by far trivial things ("It exists so it's acceptable"), and the article itself is only existing to advertise the company and the several different accounts show this. Worse, the fact the usernames themselves show they were actually company employees so that's not something we compromise nor should we, therefore there's simply nothing for an actual article here, unless we want to accept such a blatant advertisement.

This was PRODed in February 2014 with the basis of an advertisement and this should have been deleted then or sooner, because no amount of any published and republished sources were going to suggest better and we should not mistake it as otherwise. The two accounts that heavily focused with this one article were apparently the same person as they thinly had the same name so considering this was an advertisement, that's also nothing we compromise with, at all. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 7 November 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.