Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unanet Technologies


 * 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. No consensus to delete after two relistings. (non-admin closure)  D u s t i *poke* 19:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Unanet Technologies

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Advertisement, orphan, notability Notnoteworthy (talk) 06:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. — Mike  moral  ♪♫  09:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Mike  moral  ♪♫  09:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is somewhat borderline. Seems like they have a product that is used fairly widely, but happens to be in a not-so-exciting field (time sheets?) so not covered in popular press. Might be possible to rescue by removing the marketing language (another case of the dreaded "solution provider" sigh). It appears the CEO is somewhat notable, and the company had a previous life as "Computer Strategies, Inc" which might be worth telling. Not sure when someone can work on it. W Nowicki (talk) 15:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I think the notability should be addressed with a couple Washington Post articles and a few other mentions of software and people. Been around since 1988, so much more than the usual article about two kids and an app. Still needs work to un-orphan and do a better job explaining what they do. They seem to provide timesheet software for the Beltway bandits in that area, for example. But please take another look. W Nowicki (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar   &middot;   &middot;  08:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar   &middot;   &middot;  16:33, 1 July 2013 (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.