Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pixetell


 * 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 (NAC) RMHED (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Pixetell

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Promotion for a non-notable software product. Sources given are not significant. Article has been written by a series of SPAs. Haakon (talk) 10:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Comment - Information in this article is accurate and can be verified. This is a new type of communication/collaboration product. Please assist with cleanup if anything is inaccurate or not in compliance with Wikipedia guidelines. Links to product reviews by respected publications (i.e. VentureBeat/New York Times, etc.) were provided for accuracy. Press coverage so far has been positive with only one negative comment which was included in this article. Assistance / feedback is requested to insure this article remains available.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.168.48.172 (talk) 10:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: — 69.168.48.172 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
 * Delete This story is from a reliable source and of sufficient depth. This story is from a reliable source, but wavers between the CEO himself and his company, so its depth is borderline. I could find no third piece of reliable source coverage. Given how promotional the WP article in question is, I lean towards Delete. Notability borderline (its satisfaction of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources is on the border), but the article basically needs to be started over even in the event it is found to be notable. --Cyber cobra (talk) 12:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficient sources now in article to indicate notability. --Cyber cobra (talk) 07:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficient sources now in article to indicate notability. --Cyber cobra (talk) 07:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Reworked article with citations for verification, removed marketing spin, added history, added security detail, removed promotional external links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nopatterson (talk • contribs) 21:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: — Nopatterson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I don't know that you really did all that. The article is still heavily promotional, and you are a new in a series of single-purpose users writing this article. Haakon (talk) 22:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I made some edits about 12 hours ago. Please let me know what else you think it needs to be cleaned up. As I am a relatively new contributor to Wikipedia (I'll mostly be contributing about mobile topics), I'd like to learn more about postings, etc. I tried to make the article much less promotional than the edits that were made. Einar75 (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2009 (PST)


 * Keep It is disturbing the way this was written by COI spam accounts. The article is now at a state showing notability. I also moved some showoff external links to a section on uncited references to try and neutralize the advertising style presentation. Miami33139 (talk) 06:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete: Article still reads very promotional to me. LoudHowie (talk) 15:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep: Passes WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, sources meet WP:GNG. Andrea105 (talk) 18:05, 29 November 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.