Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veeam

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Veeam[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An information technology and software company selling only to other companies in that industry. Of little interest to readers of a general encyclopedia and scant evidence of notability given. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in User talk:RHaworth and Talk:Veeam, this article will likely improve in the coming days. Is there some part of WP:COMPANY that's not met at this point? There are lots of secondary sources [1] --SFoskett (talk)

delete In answer to the question, the part of COMPANY that isn't met is the part requiring coverage other than routine press releases, product announcements, and trade show filler in industry-specific publications. EEng (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep I'm not employed or paid by this company, but I know them and attest that they're fairly well known in the industry. I've added some references from CRN, Dell Power Solutions, and NetworkWorld. Their relationship with Aelita Software Corporation is interesting (and news to me)... --SFoskett (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It doesn't seem to meet the notability criteria and as mentioned above if you don't count tradeshow notices and product announcements there aren't many references to work with. Perhaps in time as the company generates more sources it could be added but right now I just don't see it. --Kumioko (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2011 (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.