Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Track'em


 * 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   delete. j⚛e deckertalk 15:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Track'em

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a specific product of a company that the community decided is not notable back in April: Articles_for_deletion/Saleem_Technologies. It was written by undisclosed paid editors and while they've tried to cobble some evidence of notability together there is no substantial independent coverage of this product that I can find. SmartSE (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:GNG does not require "substantial" coverage.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment The company AfD holds little information.  Two editors doubted the notability of the organization without having a fully-formed opinion, and without providing the searches they used.  Two editors expressed content concerns, which is likely the reason the article was deleted.  The closing admin left the reason for the closing as an exercise to the reader, but non-admins cannot see the article. , FYI.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete I think the awards are legitimate attention given to Kashif Saleem, but investing.businessweek.com does not list either him or his company or this product.  Kashif Saleem has been moved to draftspace.  CNN iReport and Washington Times Communities probably should not be used to assess wp:notability.  The Nick Sas article is good, but notice that the company refuses to reveal revenue figures.  I found, while looking on the first two pages of Google, but a close reading of the latter shows that this product is more about what it might be in the future than anything to report in an encyclopedia.  I saw nothing in Google books.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 21:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Is here to promote. Delete spam. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:46, 9 September 2014 (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.