Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AudioCodes

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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 03:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AudioCodes

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

Corporation does not meet WP:GNG. It has received paltry coverage for its 23 year tenure and has made zero impact outside of a very small niche. Article is written like an advertisement and has very little NPOV throughout. I do not think it is possible to remove the POV and ALSO establish notability. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 22:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article has been edited by Audiocodes before to insert promotional language. In terms of news/reliable source coverage, I did manage to find a few sources similar to this. Outside of those financial results though, there's really nothing. One would expect any publicly traded company to have a regular stream of investor related news based on regulatory filings (which are what those links are). Elaenia (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 22:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is written as Press Release and has to be redone, but the company itself has quite a lot of coverage. For example, those: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best then Draft as the amount listed above is still questionable at best and the article is currently noticeably troubled thus better work and improvements would be needed. SwisterTwister talk 04:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Given the company trades at the NASDAQ I would vote for a keep as this passes WP:GNG. Kansiime (talk) 00:25, 8 April 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.