Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BlazeVideo


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 03:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

BlazeVideo

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

A nest of apparent socks are repeatedly creating and recreating this article after speedy deletion, removing maintenance tags and deprodding it. A non-notable company, with no third-party references supplied to establish any information about it. Bare claim of notability in article, so coming here rather than speedying. ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 09:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC) My article about BlazeVideo is taged "Articles for deletion" by you, and the reason you stated was “A non-notable company, with no third-party references supplied to establish any information about it.”， but the company is not of no notability, many website linked to it, and it win very good popularity from the user. Don't doubt, if you search HDTV player, you'll find www.blazevideo.com(the website of BlazeVideo) ranked No.1, and may people have been searching for software of BlazeVideo, like BlazeDVD, BlazeDVD Copy, Blaze Video Magic, etc. just type "blaze " in google or yahoo or other search engine, you may find these phrases in searching tips(not so frequently searched phrases won't be listed there). And some other related company like Slysoft, Cyberlink, they are all listed in Wiki, and I think this company deserve several words of description. I have already made some improvement with my article, if you have any good advice, please do tell me. I will keep on improving it. Please just don't delete it without a persuasive justification. I believe Wiki is still a free encyclopedia, and everyone is trying to help each other. I want to do more for it too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haiyangzhai (talk • contribs) 03:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

The article is not of no importance, no copyright violation, can any one tell me why the AfD tags are still over there, any tips are appreciated, or please remove the AfD tag, it make me feel very uncomfortable. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haiyangzhai (talk • contribs) 08:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Delete: No knock against the company, but the references provided do not establish sufficient notability to make a convincing argument that this firm warrants an article on Wikipedia. --Ckatz chat spy  04:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

KEEP: I doubt if you have read the text above carefully or did you check it in practice, and I want to know what kind of argument would be considered convincing by you. You guys can't just deny my work without give me some little bit clear and constructive advice. If you can not help, just leave it alone and let someone else to improve it, is that OK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haiyangzhai (talk • contribs) 08:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete The article reads like an advertisement, the company itself is not noteable and the article is poorly written. I don't feel that at this time this article has a place on Wikipedia I Feel Tired (talk) 01:45, 15 June 2010 (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.