Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PHD Virtual Technologies


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 03:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

PHD Virtual Technologies

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No indication of notability. Also written in promotional manner, which makes it seem like spam. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ospalh placed a speedy deletion tag on the article under CSD G11.

Dank removed this speedy tag, stating "Downshifting from "speedy deletion" to a 7-day waiting period. The two references undercut rather than support the idea that this company is notable. If better references can be added within the next 7 days, then remove this tag and I'll have another look." Then, less than 5 hours later, 83.67.93.30 made an edit for which the edit summary was "updated references", but in fact made no changes to references: the only change made in that edit was the removal of the prod tag. In fact no references have been added or changed at any time from when the PROD tag was placed to now. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Added additional information about this years VMworld awards for top virtialization software companies, which PHD were a part of. This should support that the company is notable in the field as it is one of the top 10 in the industry. Please could you remove the speedy del tag also as this should no longer be required. --RedTrack (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There was no speedy delete tag at the date of the above post: it had been removed over 3 months before (29 April) JamesBWatson (talk) 11:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed Tag. Dank could you please have another look at the entry now and provide feedback. Cheers --RedTrack (talk) 15:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't remove the tag until the discussion is closed. An AfD is to create consensus, which is hard to do if the tag is taken away. Hairhorn (talk) 04:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Nearly all the references in the article are to press releases from the company. I don't see any reliable sources. UncleDouggie (talk) 06:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Er... I removed the tag from the article because "Dank" who added it said "If better references can be added within the next 7 days, then remove this tag and I'll have another look" so I added references and deleted the tag "as requested", then waited for him to have "another look". As for the "reliable sources"... If you "look" at the references there are blogs, news releases.... what constitutes reliable? I'd think that if a big news agency like Reuters picks up on it then it would be "reliable". Are you looking for purely forum posts etc? Please let me know "what constitues a reliable source" and I'll add them as I'm sure there will be lots of content out there. Thanks. --RedTrack (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Dank's invitation to remove a tag was placed in a PROD tag which was removed on 29 April. I am surprised that RedTrack thought that it applied to the AfD placed on 9 September. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I left a message on your talk page yesterday to check WP:SOURCES. UncleDouggie (talk) 23:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Blogs and news releases are excellent examples of what are not good sources. Anyone can write anything in a blog, so they are not reliable. A company's press release plugs its own view, so it is not an independent source, no matter what company reproduces it. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Added non press release refs. Pls re-check. Thx --RedTrack (talk) 17:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but none of the new refs are reliable third-party sources. One of them is your own company promoting its marketing of PHD Virtual Technologies. If the company is notable, it should have received some type of coverage in regular industry publications. Blogs just don't cut it. UncleDouggie (talk) 19:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure. It's been covered in quite a few publications. Will find the articles and add as refs. Cheers --RedTrack (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete Only non-wire/PressRelease coverage is the DCIG blog entry (which is of questionable reliability) and InfoWorld, which is borderline significant. --Cyber cobra (talk) 01:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Too much marketing, too little reliable sources providing discussion of the topic. Drmies (talk) 04:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have checked every one of the "references" given. Almost all of them are press releases, advertising pages, blogs, etc, and none of them gives substantial independent coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Better refs haven't been provided after numerous requests. Simple searches show no independent coverage of the company or its products. Perhaps they will be notable one day, but they don't seem to be today. UncleDouggie (talk) 11:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as blatant advertising: a software company developing simple, scalable solutions to complex data problems. OK, but what do you do for a living? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per above. Joe Chill (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2009 (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.