Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CyberVision


 * 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. Spam. Tolerable with barbeque sauce. Not good on Wikipedia. Courcelles 01:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

CyberVision

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Do we really want to keep this article full of advertising? I cannot find anything notable about this company. Nageh (talk) 11:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete reads like a brochure, full of marketing-speak like "RIA guarantees a lush user experiences through intuitive interaction with the application and a visually rich GUI interface." No, seriously, that's an actual quote! Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - advertising, might pass under G11 for CSD though pretty iffy. Derild  49  21  ☼  13:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
 * Speedy delete. Not iffy at all: a full-cycle custom software development and IT consulting company.... provides custom technology and business inspired solutions.... uses a CMMi level 5 based "Delivery-Vision" methodology which addresses certain specifics related to managing offshore software development projects.  After reading that, do you really have a clear picture of the kind of software they make?  If not, this article is also patent nonsense as well as blatant advertising. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So tagged. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Although it is written quite a bit like an advertisement, that could be fixed by editing. However, I see no evidence that this company meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines (WP:CORP).  References are not-independent of the subject.  Peacock (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I have removed the most blatantly promotional section as it appeared to be a copyright infringement. What is left is promotional-ish, but salvageable, as far as that goes. However, there is no evidence at all of notability. No source is cited except the company's own website, and searches fail to produce any significant independent coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:10, 26 August 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.