Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solera networks

'''To Whom it may concern. Editor's Note on Deletion Discussion: User:Gbelknap is a suspected sockpuppet of User:MooshiePorkFace, a pay for hire wikipedia editor. User:Gbelknap looks like an WP:SPI in any event or a meat puppet for the subject of the article. Only contributions are this single article and some marketing fluff on Deep Packet Capture.'''


 * 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 (non-admin closure) Darkspots (talk) 01:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Solera networks

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

non notable company Excariver (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as nn - No WP:RS so fails WP:ORG. Sting au  Buzz Me...   23:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Updated with notable secondary sources as per WP:ORG, also included products and services. Gbelknap (talk) 03:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know if Networkworld.com and ISP-Planet actually stack up to WP:RS as far as, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." goes? Anything from the mainstream media? Because I couldn't find anything, so if not reliable fails WP:V. Also the products and services you supposedly added are all red links. Sting au  Buzz Me...   04:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Networkword and ISP-Planet may not be CBS or the New York Times but they are members of the mainstream media for the Networking industry. These are legitimate secondary sources and are not: "Press releases; autobiographies; advertising for the company, corporation, organization, or group; and other works where the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people.  Self-published material or published at the direction of the subject of the article would be a primary source and falls under a different policy." or "Works carrying merely trivial coverage; such as (for examples) newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories., as required per WP:ORG.  These are publications that meet with WP:RS's requirement: Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made. and thus passes WP:V. Gbelknap (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've also corrected the product list to eliminate red links. Gbelknap (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Connect magazine is a bit dubious, but Network World and ISP-Planet are industry specific trade magazines. Satisifies notability with multiple articles from reliable sources independent from the subject. -- Whpq (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Network World isn't automatically a reliable source, since at least some of their content is taken directly from press releases, but the cited article looks like it passes muster. -- BPMullins | Talk 18:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Gbelknap. Rigby27   Talk  00:00, 24 February 2008 (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.