Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/602LAN SUITE Groupware

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 --JForget 23:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 602LAN SUITE Groupware

602LAN SUITE Groupware (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Contested prod. All references are self-published. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Added external references Brandonsturgeon (talk) 18:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete looks very spammy, no hits on Google News, all sources are either self published or leads to place where we can download software. Fails WP:N Doc StrangeTelepathic MessagesStrange Frequencies 20:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't think this is blatant spam, it doesn't read entirely like an advertisement and independent sources were recently added. Notwithstanding, the article doesn't make any assertion of notability, and the lack of Ghits makes me believe that this is not notable. Mr Senseless (talk) 22:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - spam about non-notable software from non-notable company placed on Wikipedia by an employee of the company (a simple search on their site will show a Brandon Sturgeon). Maybe even speedy as blatant advertising. In addition all the "references" supplied seem to be nothing more than press releases, not proper third party coverage or mention. I can find no reason to recommend this as notable. Canterbury Tail talk 04:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete looks spammy to me -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as blatant advertising. Mayalld (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I originally had it tagged as G11, but that was declined by an admin, so I had to go through prod which was contested, then this AfD.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:58, 1 March 2008 (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.