Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JetNEXUS Solutions


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 11:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

JetNEXUS Solutions

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No assertion of notability per WP:CORP; referenced only by company press releases and two product reviews in minor blogs; no significant coverage found online in WP:Reliable sources to establish notability. Company is actually called JetNEXUS, but that article's been salted after three speedy deletions in 2009. It was speedied again at JetNEXUS Ltd, created by Special:Contributions/Jetnexus1 (now blocked for promotional username) less than an hour before this article was created. Proposed deletion contested by article's creator without comment. Altered Walter (talk) 10:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 10:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 10:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Everything on the page is purely factual and is not being used as a marketing or advertising tool. There are several other article included on Wikipedia from the same sector with similar articles such as Kemp Technologies which are still live on Wikipedia. The company is called jetNEXUS Solutions and this is our official trading name. jetNEXUS is merely an abbreviation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Np91 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. There's an awful lot of primary coverage and press releases, none of which can be used to establish notability, but there's a small amount of (IMHO) reliable sourcing with the Business Computing World article, and also by this article in Computer Weekly, although the fact that both are written by the same person leaves me feeling a bit suspicious about it. The three speedies in 2009 were actually two speedies and an expired PROD - significantly, the speedies were dated earlier than the two sources I've mentioned here. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   15:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 08:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. The few non-primary and non-self-published sources are reviews in business and IT-related publications of back-office IT products.  None suggest that this business or its products have made "significant effects" on history, technology, or culture needed to sustain a standalone encyclopedia article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:52, 28 January 2013 (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.