Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ascentive

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. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 06:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ascentive[edit]

Unreferenced, not-notable, and appears to be almost attempting to give notoriety to an otherwise unknown group. WP has articles for major viruses, trojans, and rogues, but doesn't need articles for every rogue software group who would be happy to solidify their rep with other wannabe virus writers through a WP article of their own. JCutter (talk) 04:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not-notable; seems to be advertising and posturisation for otherwise unimportant. From the internet, it appears that this group offer performance-enhancing software that actually acts as malware. Not the sort of thing Wikipedia supports. Greggers ^{(t • c)} 11:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 12:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but for different reasons than noted. This page looks like the corporate equivalent of a BLP violation or an attack page. I did a google news search and the company actually looks like it (at least at one time) legit; their main product appeared to be a software package that allowed employers or parents to monitor and control their employees and children's internet usage while at work. MSNBC did a bit on them: [1] as did the Raleigh News and Observer: [2]. This article, however, makes no use of these sources and I'm not sure there's much here worth saving; if a proper article on this company were created at a later date, I would not object, but what's there now clearly has to go. (for full disclosure, I denied a speedy deletion request on this company, and recommended that an AFD discussion be started instead). --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.