Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aventail Corporation

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 merge.-Wafulz 21:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aventail Corporation

Article doesn't assert [[WP:|notability]]. - G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 05:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7, article on a company with no assertion of notability, so tagged. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 06:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy delete~~ per above. Also qualifies as A1 (short/no-context) and possibly A11 (blatant adspam). Groupthink 06:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zounds, Eyrian, that was one damned fine edit. For the first time that I can remember, you've made me flip from one extreme end of the recommendation spectrum to the other. Speedy keep! Groupthink 08:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- While I respect Eyrian's edit, I don't see how that alone could change your stance that much. Then again, that's just my opinion (obviously, I still say delete) - G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 09:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note 1 was primarily what made my head, and my viewpoint, spin 180°. Groupthink 09:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some additional sourced information to the article and removed the speedy tag. I feel the sources there could make a good case for notability. Spam, this is not--Eyrian 08:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, give this debate some more time. Daniel 08:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. This company could be notable, but IMO the article still does not assert that notability. —gorgan_almighty 10:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into SonicWALL. --Tikiwont 13:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into SonicWALL. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 14:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a second folks, that corporate merger hasn't been completed yet! Shouldn't an article merge wait until that time? Groupthink 23:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, merging articles and companies doesn't follow the same rationales. The purchase notice affects both and the source has rather more to offer with respect to SonicWall. I've now inlcuded the reference there as well and therfore the current article doesn't tell you much more about Aventail than SonicWall. Sso unless there is a big chance for fleshing out the article, this Afd can be closed by redirecting. And if the merger does fail, one can still go back to an own article for each. Tikiwont 14:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per corporate merger. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 18:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The merger was only announced ten days ago. What if it falls apart? Groupthink 19:52, 22 June 2007 (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.