Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ActivTrak


 * 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) 10:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

ActivTrak

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

My PROD was removed with the sole basis that the WashingtonPost suggests notability yet I listed my concerns and my concerns were all listed extensively and clearly, my own searches had not found anything better and the coverage listed is still only either PR, trivial coverage or company-supplied information, this should have never actually been accepted at AfC since it had been deleted as G11 (regardless if it was restored because of a technicality with a user involved), because this was still not what we would expect as substance and I'm not finding anything else actually suggestive of better. Examined searches at NetworkWorld, Forbes (even then, this one has become quite noticeably PR-navigated as a "news" source") and NYTimes, found nothing. Once we become a PR webhost, given this article was started as a PR campaign, which is currently not uncommon at all, given what we've seen, we're damned as an encycopedia and simply a churnalism source as several news sources have become now, in exchange for capital gains and advertising. SwisterTwister   talk  04:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

 References
 * Comment – Below are some sources. North America1000 05:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment and analysis - I'll note both of these sources are included in the current article as it is, and they are both trivial since the first one simply mentions the company itself a few times, and then the second never actually means this company and instead simply focuses with the subject of surveillance security. SwisterTwister   talk  05:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * delete sources both in article, proffered by Northamerica1000 and in a basic BEFORE are entirely unconvincing - apart from the churnalism, the passing category reviews are the best coverage, and I'm not convinced by a couple of category reviews - David Gerard (talk) 07:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- an unremarkable software package and a WP:PROMO article. This is a product brochure in the form of a WP article. No RS to establish notability can be found. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.