Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zadara VPSA


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 20:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Zadara VPSA

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested prod. No evidence of notability, and the article is written in a very promotional manner. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent RS references. Only ref provided is low quality and does not mention Zadara in any case. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to an enlarged product section on Zadara Storage. Not enough coverage to warrant a standalone page, but still relevant as what seems to be the company's big product. Yvarta (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete (change from Redirect to Zadara Storage). Not notable on its own and Zadara Storage is also being considered for deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't bother, as I've sent it to AfD. The COI users refuse to disclose, and the article fails too many policies to be kept. MSJapan (talk) 05:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - this was forked out in the first place, probably because I deleted it out of the article. I did that because it is closer to a discussion of the underlying technology than it is a product description, which is outside the scope of the article.  A discussion of the technology was also the only thing that led to a third-party hit, so it was designed to be a "reliable source." MSJapan (talk) 05:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete The technology isn't notable enough at this time. Stuff like this usually needs some good scholarly sources to show that it has started being adopted. In cases of technology invented by one particular company, the sources have to significantly describe the technology itself - independent of the company. That is not happening here. Clear delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete by all means as there's no actual substance here at all, and this should've been deleted as PROD. SwisterTwister   talk  07:02, 12 August 2016 (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.