Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patton Electronics


 * 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 of the debate was delete. --Cel es tianpower háblame 18:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Patton Electronics
No indication of meeting WP:CORP, written as an advertisement. Apparently speedied once already (see talk). Sandstein 21:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC) Please, on what basis do you assert it was "apparently" speedied? Glendonflowers 00:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable. If kept, the massive over-linking to the company's website needs to be removed. Deli nk 21:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Cautious delete; somewhat non-notable. If expanded with useful info and the excessive links removed it could be kept. --Chris 22:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable. If kept, the massive over-linking to the company's website needs to be removed. Deli nk 21:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Cautious delete; somewhat non-notable. If expanded with useful info and the excessive links removed it could be kept. --Chris 22:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

See the following 3rd-party articles about Patton: -Glendonflowers 23:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Patton's VoIP IADs Now BroadSoft-Interoperable
 * Patton Electronics: New SmartNode VoIP More Secure
 * Patton Electronics Launches Smallest VoIP Adapter
 * Delete. The articles above appear to be press release material.  Vegaswikian 06:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BALLS and WP:SPAM. Stifle 22:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, please take another look. The spam links have been replaced with internal wiki links. Isn't the Patton page is comparable to the RAD page (which is not slated for deletion)? Are there substantial differences? If so, please advise. Glendonflowers 00:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Please visit http://www.telecomdirectnews.com/do.php/105/16883. Here are some more external links pointing to Patton as a player in the marketplace...

http://whitepapers.businessweek.com/detail/ORG/948134608_119.html http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/product-compint-0000239990-page.html http://www.mwcmc.org/mwcmcUserDetail.php?userID=281 http://local.yahoo.com/results?stx=%22patton+electronics%22&toggle=1&qry=%22patton+electronics%22&fr=FP-tab-web-t&toggle=1&coei=UTF-8 http://www.thomasnet.com/heading.html?what=Enclosures%3A+Electronic&searchpos=25&cid=371639&heading=26070201&navsec=products http://www.telecomdirectnews.com/do.php/105/16883 http://www.capitol-college.edu/newsevents/8920_36.shtml http://www.motionnet.com/cgi-bin/search.exe?a=sc&no=11167 http://datafire.patton.com/ http://www.elsitech.com/customer/customer_casestudiesPatton.html http://whitepapers.zdnet.co.uk/0,39025945,60010883p-39000421q,00.htm

Is this enough web presence to qualify notabillity? Glendonflowers 20:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this vanispamcruftisement. — Mar. 30, '06 [07:23] <[ freakofnurxture]|[ talk]>


 * 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.