Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halogen Software

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. Rlevse 02:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Halogen Software

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

I speedy deleted this as an advert requiring rewrite. The author asked me about recreation, and I advised notability must be shown with sound references. It has been recreated, slightly modified, without any substantiation. It currently fails WP:N and WP:V (or WP:ATT) Tyrenius 21:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:CORP—no verifiable sources provided and still reads like an ad. Deor 01:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11. Leuko 01:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I found a reference and added it. --Eastmain 02:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have added another creditable reference to the reference section. If there are certain parts of the article which you are specifically stating to be reading like an ad, please let me know and I will work on them. This is not meant to read like an advert, it is meant to be an information piece just like other major companies listed on Wiki. Thank you for your consideration. Kanata500 13:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC) — Kanata500 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Very weak keep I quickly removed half the puffery, but i do not know how much of an article will be left if it all goes. DGG 04:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. That's exactly what G11 is for— if the entire article is puffery, then it should be deleted and rewritten later. --Interiot 02:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Seems like clear G11 to me.--SethTisue 14:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. The article is much better now than it originally was, and some of the comments were made in response to previous versions of the article. I would encourage people who have already commented to take a look at the current version of the article. --Eastmain 16:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. It's a little better than it was, but it's still vapid puffery. G11.--SethTisue 17:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Is the word =vapid= considered inoffensive language on Wikipedia? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• It's certainly moved in the right direction, but under WP:N and WP:CORP it is necessary to have multiple non-trivial mentions in reliable secondary sources. There is a reasonable piece in the Wall Street Journal, but that on its own is not sufficient. Tyrenius 00:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• weak delete - presently still reads like an advertisement. POV-sounding statements in the article aren't supported by footnotes - I don't think a corporate article should read like a press release, but should be an independent viewpoint summarizing publicly-reported information on the company. More effort seems to have gone into the company infobox than content, so far. But please change my vote to keep if these are addressed - I don't want to vote delete for an article by a new user that got tagged for AfD 3.5 hours after it was first created (unless someone would like to demonstrate that the user created the article in bad faith). AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment on closing advertisement article and consensus.Rlevse 02:11, 30 March 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.