Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VMTurbo: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:29, 3 August 2016

VMTurbo

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

Still nothing at all actually suggestive of substance as the only links are either press releases, advertorial and PR speak, trivial passing mentions and my searches are also finding the same with none of it actually being convincing; there's essentially nothing else better. SwisterTwister talk 20:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Well sourced article, covered by Bloomberg, no policies cited for review at AfD. No evidence of a problem to be considered at AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 00:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar - I have no intentions of interacting or speaking to the user above (Speedy Keep voter) and wish they would not ping or notify me, but I comment regarding " speedy keep" which is not applicable because the article is entirely advertorial to where even the coverage is PR itself (all either about advertising awards, sales financing or funding). SwisterTwister talk 07:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than enough to meet criteria for notability. If SwisterTwister believes that the article is advertorial, then the correct course of action is to edit the article, not delete it. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But even the sources themselves are PR. SwisterTwister talk 15:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:CORPDEPTH. I do not know how one can postulate that there's essentially nothing else better when I readily found two Forbes articles that show up doing an intitle: search. — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 19:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intentions to start a discussion with this user, but for historical purposes, I'll note that the "corpdepth" is all based from simply news about its funding and other company finances which basically amount to PR. Several users who have mentioned this at AfD include DGG. SwisterTwister talk 20:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 ::But even the sources themselves are PR. [[User:SwisterTwister|<font color="green">'''S'''wister'''T'''wister</font>]] [[User talk:SwisterTwister|<font color="green">talk</font>]] 15:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''', passes [[WP:CORPDEPTH]]. I do not know how one can postulate that {{gi|there's essentially nothing else better}} when I readily found two ''Forbes'' articles that show up doing an '''intitle:''' search. — '''[[User:Sam Sailor|Sam Sailor]] [[User talk:Sam Sailor|<sup>''Talk!''</sup>]]''' 19:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
+*I have no intentions to start a discussion with this user, but for historical purposes, I'll note that the "corpdepth" is all based from simply news about its funding and other company finances which basically amount to PR. Several users who have mentioned this at AfD include {{U|DGG}}. [[User:SwisterTwister|<font color="green">'''S'''wister'''T'''wister</font>]] [[User talk:SwisterTwister|<font color="green">talk</font>]] 20:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)