Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halogen Software (2nd nomination)

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. CitiCat ^♫ 04:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Halogen Software

Halogen Software (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article has been deleted before. It now is revived with nothing to establish notability that I can see per WP:CORP. There are indeed references, but be careful to examine them rather than just consider them pretty enough: when I look through them they appear to mention, rather than feature Halogen for the most part. Some references do cover it more in-depth but they are investor resources, not necessarily a source of notability. Some are also broken. An editor who disagreed with the AFD the first go-around created this but I still don't think it's got notability. Epthorn (talk) 07:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• NOTE: I'm not sure how to properly format the box on right to reflect that this has had a previous AFD which may be found here. If someone knows how, I would appreciate it. Epthorn (talk) 07:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Somehow the fact that "DumbBOT" appears smarter than I is a little bit... distressing.Epthorn (talk) 14:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, strongly, and salt.

  This article's illustrates a disturbing trend. Frankly, I am deeply suspicious of articles that spring into existence full blown, including infoboxes.[1] Many articles about non-notable software, communications, and consulting businesses seem to do this. I suspect that someone out there is offering lessons on how to suborn Wikipedia for promotional purposes.

  The article content seems entirely in-house generated, and has strong NPOV issues, as you'd expect someone in marketing to write: provides Web-based employee performance and talent management solutions. As you know, I both condemn and contemn this misuse of the word solution, and consider its use in this manner a per-se breach of WP:NPOV. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

*Comment: That's what I was trying to say above when I mentioned how 'pretty' the references look, despite being very shallow. It smells like gaming the system.Epthorn (talk) 15:35, 10 December 2007 (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.