Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novas Software, Inc.

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. Sango123 16:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Novas Software, Inc.

fails WP:SPAM. Pure advertorial. This deletion is related to the deletion nomination for Fertility retreat and for Fios, Inc. because it was created by the same editor, who appears to be conducting a wikipublicity campaign for these three organisations / people. The AfD was originally improperly listed as a bundled listing along with Fertility retreat. Fiddle Faddle 10:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. & advert. Rob 10:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dionyseus 10:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Tychocat 10:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spam Just zis Guy you know? 11:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:CORP, as well as being part of an SEO campaign, or something equally reprehensible. Tevildo 17:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, spam spam spam spam... --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 02:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep why is this entry being unfairly targeted as spam while other entries such as Mentor Graphics, Synplicity, Synopsys, and many others in the EDA industry are a lot more 'advertisial' in tone than this one? I even modeled the format for this entry after the many others in the EDA companies category. I specifically strayed from any sort of 'advertising speak'. The only reason I see why this entry (along with others I've posted due to having knowledge of those companies) is being considered for deletion is because I made three entries in a short time span. I don't think that's neccessarily fair. Nor do I believe if you took a look at the entry itself and compared it to other entries for EDA companies, this specific one would stick out as being an 'advertisement' in the slightest. PLEASE take a look at the entry itself before labeling it as a 'spam entry' due to reading the accusation that Fiddle Faddle has written about the author of the entry.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amplifychristian (talk • contribs).
  • I have replied to relevant parts of this, and parts not within this, on my talk page, where Amplifychristian and I have a reasonably lengthy correspondence. Valid points have been raised, and I hope have been answered. I have so far seen no reason to vary my nomination. I'd like to see it. My preferred outcome for AfD is a notable and good article. Fiddle Faddle 13:52, 15 July 2006 (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.