Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PicaJet

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. – Steel 13:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PicaJet

Tagged for speedy deletion as A7 and G11, but not blatant spam. Spam, nonehtless, thoguh, from a user with few or no other contriutions. WP:NOT a software directory. Guy (Help!) 06:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. YechielMan 14:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Leuko 20:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Vgranucci 03:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete per nom not being accurate. Armypower 12:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC) — Armypower (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep per discussion. anthony 15:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
~~Weakk Keep/merge~~ If you go to the PicaJet site, it has a couple of excerpts of reviews in PC Magazine and Consumer Eletronics. If those can be verified and properly sourced, and the article improved, I think this might lend the company some degree of notability. I'd want more sources, though, and "just the facts" profiles--no marketing language, no self-citing (press releases) or OR. And all Picajet offerings (the synonymous software, any recreation of RoboImport and RoboFolder wouldn't merit seperate articles, but become part of this one. Them's my thoughts. Wysdom 03:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC) program some degree of notability. Furthermore, it seems to have a component RoboImport which was deleted, but could potentially add substance if merged into an improved PicaJet article. I'm onna fence. :/ Wysdom 03:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm back on the fence. Honordrive created PicaJet. Armypower joins WP out of the blue to defend it. Beganstory creates an account today to argue for the overturn of RoboImport's deletion--mounting an argument very similar to Armypower's, here. Not sure who created RoboImport, since it's not part of the deletion log... I want to assume good faith and all, but I smell socks. :/ Wysdom 03:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually everything related to these articles is the work of a single purpose account. A small nest of them, as it seems. Suspicious? You betcha. Guy (Help!) 11:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add Spokeroad to the list of Picajet sockpuppet suspects. Created today, one contribution: to delete the comment of Armypower from this page (a change which I've reverted).

Weak keep If the reviews mentioned are included--Wysdom--why not put them in right now? Nothing wrong with improving an article during an AfD discussion. The article talk page mentions some other sites as well. DGG 03:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete On evidence of COI/spam and a small army of sockpuppets. @DGG: Normally, I'd do that, but the more I look into this, the more it appears to me that this Spokeroad/Armypower/Honordrive/Beganstory/and the four other SPA sockpuppets involved with the RoboImport spamstub is desperately trying to get his/her product some PR at the expense of this community. I wish I felt differently, but the very thought of putting effort into legitimating this... person's "contribution" when there are so many other, good faith contributions needing attention? Yuck. :P Wysdom 04:02, 28 April 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.