Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Resource On Demand


 * 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   already deleted. by User:Jimfbleak per WP:CSD — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  17:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Resource On Demand

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

Not entirely clear what this article is about but I think it is an advert for a software package. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I have no idea what any of this even means or what it is about. I can't identify a subject, nd it appears to be some for of ad. - Marcusmax ( speak ) 01:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It is an advertisement for a software package masquerading as an article. It's even sourced to press releases by the company selling the software.  There may be a subject to be had here.  But this content isn't it.  It isn't even a good stub.  It's an advertisement.  We should not host it pending the arrival of an actual encyclopaedia article. Uncle G (talk) 05:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I understand exactly what the article is about (resource allocation software, to, oh, handle a storm outage event where you need to restore power, which means you have to send utility guys up thousands of poles, and you only have 100 guys to work with). That being said, This isn't much of an article, and certainly isn't much of an encyclopedia entry. Ronabop (talk)
 * Delete. Nothing but promotional content.  Looks like an excerpt from marketing collateral, detailing the results of a survey carried out by a company that makes resource allocation software demonstrating the need for resource allocation software.  Color me surprised.  --Clay Collier (talk) 12:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Promotional and I'm not finding any sense of notability when I search. Hobit (talk) 21:01, 5 April 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.