Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daviker


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Daviker

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Promotional article that cites 1) company press releases; 2) unrelated articles (i.e. articles that do no mention this company); and 3) company white papers as its only sources, and thus fails to establish the notability of this company. Google search provides no significant hits.    WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Spam. The article is totally promotional, and there is not one single proper independent source. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree, Spam. Also fails to conform with WP:COMPANY —ASPENSTI— TALK — CONTRIBUTIONS 16:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
 * Delete. Non-notable maker of telemarketing software. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, and as noted. I removed the hangon tag because the newbie creator removed the speedy deletion tag.  That having been said, it looks spammish to me.  This is the sole news item that I could find, and this is the only review I could find, but they do not look reliable to me. This looks at first glance to be real news story, but is actually just a press release.  Sorry, it is not notable. Bearian (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete No reliable, independent sources to establish its significance, and as such fails WP:ORG. Jay  Σεβαστός discuss  19:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Seems a bit like a spammy, promotional arcitle. No reliable soucres to prove notability. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 16:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete probably not notable, no worthiwile sources. ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2011 (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.