Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PathSolutions


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

PathSolutions

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

Fails WP:NOTE, no outside references, sources, or anything resembling a link that would constitute notability. Fairly clear WP:ADVERT. Sammael 42 (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, no evidence of notability offered. (Saying a product can handle a network of size N does not confer notability - explaining how that relates to other similar products might.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I checked the definition of WP:ADVERT and it asks to be written in a neutral point of view. Can’t it be argued, since it has a neutral point of view (pointing out benefits, drawbacks, and competitors) that WP:ADVERT does not apply. On SarekOfVulcan's comments regarding notability, I am not sure I exactly understand you... there is a list at bottom of similar products each having an article, "other similar products". Goldenrowley (talk) 06:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC). One more comment:  The talk page says this article is a stub supported by the WikiProject Software.Goldenrowley (talk) 06:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't point out any drawbacks, the whole thing is a pitch for their products. I don't think that listing off a few other products in the same field really balances out to what I'd call NPOV. As for your second comment, I don't see what you're saying. There's no "other similar products" section. Were you looking at the right article? Sammael 42 (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I just did not understand all of Sarek's comment (no offense). There IS an external article reference - that's evidence of notability right, saying its a "first" of kind. Maybe this wasn't clear. I moved the reference from external links to a new reference section. Goldenrowley (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Very Weak Keep, not really convinced this article contains any notable and useful information, but Goldenrowley makes some good points. WP would be better served by having this article fleshed out rather than deleted. Kparsons08 (talk) 03:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed to Delete -- I would agree with you, Goldenrowley, but check out that reference you're citing. They're not a third party, they're a site that republishes self-written 'press releases.' Their forum has been hacked for months now without remedy, probably because there's really nothing of substance there. I was on the fence before, but with the only two remaining 'legitimate' links being directed back at the subject's own site, there is nothing useful or notable left in this article. Kparsons08 (talk) 03:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok... I did not realize the Security Zone was a vanity publisher. Goldenrowley (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:ADVERT. Also, hilarious that the company's page links to a hacked forum... Are they even still in business? Meatychode (talk) 21:02, 10 January 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.