Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DeskAlerts


 * 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--Ymblanter (talk) 10:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

DeskAlerts

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:CORP - sources do not appear to satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH. The article was moved out of the Draft namespace by a SPA which seems very suspicious to me. Seahorseruler (Talk Page) (Contribs) 00:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  01:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  01:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  01:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete agree with Seahorse, draft should not have been moved to article space. Article reads like an advert with no notability indicated. Primefac (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete I deleted this article when it was in the creator's sandbox because it was tagged as G11, restored it by request and asked that they tone it down and submit it for review. Unfortunately they moved it themselves. Any AFC reviewer would have rejected it, because there is no claim to notability whatsoever, and when I researched it before restoring I didn't find any either. I won't get into SPA or COI concerns, the subject simply does not meet the notability guidelines. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking significant RS coverage. The refs are all incidental mentions or clearly regurgitated press releases with the possible exception of the ESJ: Enterprise Systems Journal. The ESJ source is not on its own sufficient to establish notability.Dialectric (talk) 18:02, 9 November 2014 (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.