Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zyrion Traverse


 * 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. No consensus for a redirect. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Zyrion Traverse

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has been in articlespace since 2008. At prima facie "it's been here since 2008" is a weak argument for keeping the article. (In my opinion, the 2008 article should have had the title just plain title Zyrion, but that's only tangential to this discussion.)

The Zyrion brand is defunct. Its brand and products were acquired by Kaseya in 2013.

Should this article be deleted? Maybe some other options? Shirt58 (talk) 11:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Do not delete: while now defunct, Zyrion was a significant enterprise software company in *foo* about *bar*?
 * Delete: defunct, and non-notable company?
 * Delete, but include a section copied from the deleted article in Kaseya?
 * WP:REDIRECT to Kaseya?
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete then Redirect only if actually needed because this is such a blatant advertising and it's still been when it was restarted in 2008, after it was then deleted as G12 advertising; as expected with company advertisements especially ones that have been company-supplied, none of this actually substantiates convincing for both independent notability and substance with non-PR influences, therefore it's unacceptable. SwisterTwister   talk  03:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 10:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Nominator comment: I would ask participants in this discussion to also address the suggestions for possible alternate outcomes. Shirt58 (talk) 09:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Kaseya (who own it now) are a plausible redirect target, but that's a low-quality promotional article too - David Gerard (talk) 12:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shirt58 (talk) 11:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * delete Non-notable to be here. Light2021 (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as corporate spam on an unremarkable subject. I don't see a point of a redirect to Kaseya since the latter has a notability tag on its page since 2012. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:50, 17 October 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.