Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VIAcode

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

VIAcode

[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)

No indication of notability outside of marketing copy. Note that the Washington Post link doesn't even mention VIAcode itself. Vahurzpu (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Vahurzpu (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Vahurzpu (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Badly formatted WP:CORPSPAM. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Definite CORPSPAM, and poorly done at that. The company should get its money back from the SPA they had to have paid to write it. Ravenswing 17:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WesSirius (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 04:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per all of the above Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 07:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is spamming. - The9Man ^(Talk) 12:02, 3 August 2020 (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.