Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultracker Technology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. One "keep" is from an employee, the other is not convincing. Neil ム 10:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ultracker Technology

Ultracker Technology (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)
  • Just a free online ads of a small company products. No evidence of notability. Alimevaloz 16:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: Alimevaloz seems to be a sockpuppetry of a user voting more than once in a poll about the Chinese vision of Ultracker.--Samli1018 06:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep and close afd: nice article, a bit more than a stub, why delete... --Yuriy Lapitskiy 08:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Since I only find 2,560 Google hits for Ultracker, and since it's the type of thing that should be well-covered on the web, I doubt that the company is intrinsically notable. (i.e. so notable we should keep it regardless of a bad article). The page reads like an advertisement. It is very hard to follow what this company does, and the article is not well written. Apparently this company makes DVRs that record the images from security cameras, but I can't tell if they do that well or badly, and I can't tell if any true third party is impressed by either their technology or their company. The article was created by an editor, User:Samli1018 who claims to own the copyright of one of the Ultracker images, so it presumably is a COI. This editor's user page (not his User talk) shows that he has been warned about spamming links to Ultracker. EdJohnston 05:18, 17 August 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.