Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endace


 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 04:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Endace

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Promotional article with no indication of notability. Of the six references, two are to pages not mentioning Endace, including a Wikipedia article, one is to the company's own site, two are to write-ups of minor incidents involving the company, reading like write-ups of press releases, and the other is a report on a test commissioned by Endace, so it cannot conceivably be seen as independent coverage. Tagged as advert for over two years. Written by a single purpose editor apparently with a conflict of interest. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Self-references and no authoritative third party cites to bolster notability. Tagged as an advert for over two years and still seems like an advert? Conflict of interest poster child? --Quartermaster (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Incredibly spammy tone here, talking about this business's claimed superlative performance at network monitoring.  No indication that this back-office business has had any significant impact on history, culture, or technology. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete unless reliable secondary sources showing notability can be found. At the moment this article is 50% spam and 50% more spam. Grutness...wha?  22:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep but cut back to just what the reliable independent sources support. The article references two such sources already (NSS Labs and the NZ Herald), and I've found another. The company satisfies WP:COMPANY through the two newspaper articles, though only just. --Avenue (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Ad. Insignificantly notable. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I've added some real references Stuartyeates (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep International player, London-based stock, half of market is in US, New Zealand hometown favorite, went to net worth of NZ$170 million in 7 years.  I added three references.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Changed to Keep based on Stuartyeates and Unscintillating added references. Good job kiwis (or kiwi lovers). A little more TLC wouldn't hurt, but I now have no real problem with this article existing. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Changed to keep. Much improved, notability shown. Certainly a much better article than it was. Grutness...wha?  22:03, 10 February 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.