Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VESK


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 05:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

VESK

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No third-party sources actually refer to VESK; the footnotes lead to general articles on desktop virtualisation that do not mention VESK by name. Biruitorul Talk 14:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's because I didn't want to make it look like i was trying to advertise VESK to readers, which would get the article marked for deletion. I just wanted to back up my claims with generic proof Appipark (talk) 08:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, this can be read that you are indeed trying to advertise VESK but just don't want it to look that way. Are you a neutral editor with regards to VESK? UncleDouggie (talk) 10:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the product they offer and happened to find their wiki page. Thought i'd add more information on what i've read. Appipark (talk) 11:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Couldn't find any refs in The Times, NY Times, WSJ, or any leading computer review publication. UncleDouggie (talk) 05:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Any references to what?Appipark (talk) 08:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We need reliable sources to show that the company is notable. UncleDouggie (talk) 10:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's looking difficult to find anything, i know they're a new-ish company. If i can find something from a blog or e-magazine would that be acceptable for the time being? At least until they get published in something bigger and someone can add that. Appipark (talk) 11:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read the guidelines. Blogs are not reliable sources. I'm not sure what you mean by an e-magazine. It's not an issue about size. If they have a truly novel product they will probably have some type of coverage. UncleDouggie (talk) 12:05, 2 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.