Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dialexia


 * 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. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 22:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Dialexia

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Near blatant advertising. Exists only to promote the company. No references other than ones that point to the company website Ernestvoice (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I added some references and made the overall tone less promotional. In general, nominators should indicate what efforts they have made to find references if they comment that references are sparse or absent. --Eastmain (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, strongly. This is a non-consumer tech business and the references given appear to all be trade publications.  The article is still strongly inappropriate in tone: Their suite of integrated IP Telephony solutions provides a link for small and medium-sized businesses (SMBs), carriers, and ISPs to allow them to benefit from the increased demand for next-gen telecommunication services. Where do I go for last-gen telecommunication services? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. There is nothing wrong with these trade publications. They are all reliable sources. Presumably "last-gen telecommunications services" would be circuit-switched services rather than packet-switched ones. --Eastmain (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Trade publications may or may not be reliable sources; but they don't establish notability among the general public. If they mentioned the specific technologies they provided, the article would be better written: but the point is that next-gen is vague and glittery advertising gibberish: nobody promotes their product as last-gen. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - in-house PR, trade papers, and the like, are not independent sources. Bearian (talk) 14:19, 29 July 2008 (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.