Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Venona Mediasoft


 * 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 04:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Venona Mediasoft

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Poorly-sourced article about an advertising company. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - MrX 13:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Please site reason for the deletion of this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abelbarr (talk • contribs) 10:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In plainer English, the nominator says this company fails Wikipedia's notability guideline for companies and organizations. The article does not cite reputable media sources or show nontrivial interest from such media. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Since it is a Discussion board let me tell you, its being said that its opensource but that is not the case either Let me inform you that I did not hijack the page (venona) as noted by some of the nominator, it was available Someone from the nominated group changed it to Venona mediasoft as I understand that there is a conspiracy theory thats going on as it bear the name venona what information do you want from media related sources.

since there are some legality involved I will not be sharing any more data as of now, until the company provide me permission to do so. if its your prerogative you can very well go ahead and delete the page. Thank you so much for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abelbarr (talk • contribs) 06:01, 27 October 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 04:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Delete for lack of notability. There is no claim to notability in the article, and no secondary sources at all. Also written in a very promotional tone, and could potentially have been speedily deleted as G11 (unambiguous promotion) and perhaps A7 (lack of asserted importance). --bonadea contributions talk 23:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  → Call me  Hahc  21  20:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete I am unable to find any non-advertising sources for this company. LaMona (talk) 17:10, 13 November 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.