Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TeleForm


 * 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. Black Kite 11:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

TeleForm

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

reads like an advert and review of a product, insufficient references RJFJR (talk) 20:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - The article is very promotional in nature however, the software does appear to be notable. Searching for sources is difficult as the news results are almost (but not entirely) press releases.  Business Week took notice of the software when it was launched in 1991.  Infoworld wrote about it in 1992.  Network World wrote about it 1999. IT Jungle wrote about it in 2004.  This San Diego Business Journal article from 1991 is behind a pay wall but appears to be about the company and not a press release.  The coverage spans multiple years so it's not just a blip of coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 16:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per WP:BURDEN. The article needs cleanup to remove promotional verbiage, it also needs sources added. My vote will change to keep if someone does these things during the time the article is on AfD. Miami33139 (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * AFD is to determine the potential of the article and not on its current state. We don't delete an article if it can meet the inclusion criteria but needs cleanup.  Based on your statement, it soulds like you agree the sources are sufficient but you want to see the promotional material cleaned up. -- Whpq (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a stricter criteria than "potential." That may be an outlying opinion but I don't believe that an article that is unfixed after a week needs to be here. The sources don't exist in the article. Miami33139 (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That is actually contrary to Deletion policy which states that "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." -- Whpq (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and start from scratch is a valid outcome for articles written so poorly it would take more effort to fix then re-write. This is one of those cases. There is an interesting experimental wikiproject, Article Incubator that this might qualify for. Miami33139 (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per Whpq. Passes WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - while 37,600 Google hits is insufficient on its own to merit notability, it does appear to have been the focus of an eWeek magazine article, as well as a Data Based Advisor article, among other hits. 403 Google news hits would seem to establish notability.  Current state of the article is insufficient grounds for deletion.   Cocytus   [»talk«]  01:49, 31 October 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.