Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FactoHR

{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|O}}

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=FactoHR}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=FactoHR}})

A :WP:SPA article about an HR platform. There had been an AFC rejection, draftification after an A7 tag, then it was moved to mainspace by the article creator, who subsequently removed Notability and Orphan tags placed by other editors. Products do not inherit notability from being in SAP and Azure marketplaces, and my searches are not finding better sources to demonstrate notability. There is no article on the vendor, Version Systems Private Limited, to provide a ATD target. AllyD (talk) 20:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Software, and Gujarat. AllyD (talk) 20:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
• :Keep: The article has been carefully written in a neutral tone with no promotional language. The content presents verifiable facts about factohr, based on reliable sources, in line with Wikipedia’s neutrality guidelines. Rohanmehra13 (talk) 04:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Organization does not muster notability through WP:NCORP; circumstances of the article inclusion further support that it exists for promotional purposes rather than encyclopedic. WeWake (talk) 05:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• :I’d like to clarify that I’ve not included any promotional content in the article—only verifiable, neutral, and factual information. Additionally, I recently added an independent source to strengthen the article’s reliability and notability. The intention is to meet Wikipedia's content standards, not to promote. Rohanmehra13 (talk) 04:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:Delete Also not finding any significant coverage. Article is weird given it talks about founding of the company but the article is about the product. Seems to be using wiki as a platform for promotion. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::I understand your concern, but I’d like to clarify that I’ve taken care to avoid any promotional language in the article. All the information included about factohr is factual and based on verifiable sources. The intent was to provide an accurate overview of the company and its product, not to promote it. Rohanmehra13 (talk) 04:10, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:I understand your concerns. While I am an HR student who just found to be interested in the hr tech domain and factoHR is one product in my city with whom I have no close connections. I thought this is a well known product and people concerned in the same domain should have information about this software while version systems is the company name, it is well known by its product factohr so there may not be much citations about version systems. And regarding independent citations I recently added one independent source mentioning factohr. Rohanmehra13 (talk) 04:07, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for the feedback. I understand the concerns, and I want to clarify that my intention in moving the article to mainspace and removing the tags was not to bypass editorial processes—I simply wasn’t fully aware of the proper procedure. I believed that addressing the issues mentioned (specifically by adding reliable sources) meant the tags could be removed. I'm here in good faith and open to following the correct steps to improve the article and ensure it meets Wikipedia's standards. Rohanmehra13 (talk) 04:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:I’d like to point out that Tracxn is a notable and independent source that provides verified business information. The profile on factohr includes revenue details and links to publicly available documents, which adds to the reliability of the information. Given Tracxn’s reputation for data-driven reporting on startups and private companies, I believe it qualifies as a dependable source supporting the article's content. Rohanmehra13 (talk) 04:21, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:Keep: Tracxn, a respected independent platform known for startup data analysis, provides a detailed profile on factohr, including revenue figures and references to publicly available corporate filings. This source supports the notability of the subject and meets the requirements of WP:RS. Rohanmehra13 (talk) 04:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:Keep: Earlier issues such as lack of sources and notability tags were addressed in good faith. Independent sources have since been added. The removal of tags was done under the impression that once issues were fixed, removal was appropriate—this was not an attempt to bypass process. Rohanmehra13 (talk) 04:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:Keep: Meets Criteria for Notability (WP:NCORP). The company has received significant coverage in independent sources, and is listed on recognized marketplaces like SAP and Azure. While marketplace listings alone don't establish notability, their combination with third-party reporting strengthens the case. Rohanmehra13 (talk) 04:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:Keep: Information in the article is backed by sources that provide specific data (e.g., financial performance, product reach, client base) and not just passing mentions. This demonstrates that the subject can be written about in an encyclopedic way. Rohanmehra13 (talk) 04:29, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: {{u|Rohanmehra13}}, I have struck through 4 of your 5 "keep" opinions above. You are welcome to add comments during this discussion (though please note :WP:BLUDGEON), but each individual has only one keep/delete opinion. AllyD (talk) 07:21, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• Comment responding on the source mentioned above and the blog source added to the article: The Tracxn item mentioned is presumably [https://tracxn.com/d/companies/factohr/__MBg5Z9uOo1P6u13rGJ2gx9k81XDCA6X3ZMlOQkvuDpY#about-the-company this company profile]; I'd see that as a simple listing, falling under :WP:CORPTRIV. The SAG Infotech Blog item is an unevaluated listing on a product category list (on a site with sales popups) - again, that falls under :WP:CORPTRIV. AllyD (talk) 11:25, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

: