Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embedded event manager


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) — Theo polisme  07:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Embedded event manager

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article was deleted by PROD in July 2012‎. An anonymous editor has now requested undeletion, which I have done. The PROD reason was "This product does not appear notable; no evidence of notability. Fails WP:N and WP:V." I disagree about WP:V, as the subject of the article is about a proprietary system, and documentation on the company's web site is perfectly verifiable. However, WP:N is a different matter, as there is no evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines. The subject is a part of the organisation of a proprietary system, with no existence or relevance outside the operation of that system. Apart from documentation on the company's own site, there are mentions in blogs, wikis, and other unreliable sources, and a few brief "how to" notes for users of the system, but no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. (Although it is not a reason for deletion, for context it is perhaps worth mentioning that the article was created by a single-purpose account, the user of which stated that he was working for Cisco, the company responsible for this product.) JamesBWatson (talk) 09:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't forget to add the several books by Cisco Press to that "Apart from" qualifier. &#9786;  Uncle G (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI: There is an ongoing campaign by Avaya pushers/employees to destroy coverage of everything Cisco on Wikipedia. JamesBWatson is not involved in this, I'm just pointing this out for context regarding the battling SPAs.  I have not evaluated the notability of this particular article and it may very well warrant deletion. Gigs (talk) 17:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Trevj (talk) 13:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)




 * Weak keep The article at first doesn't appear notable, but a Google search found a couple notable sources such as . I think the page is an asset to Wikipedia. Vacation nine 13:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)




 * Keep Looks encyclopedic and useful and substantial enough for an article.  Specialized content like this will be coverage-light, but my guess is that it probably exists. North8000 (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2012 (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.