Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exari

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2013 October 1.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exari[edit]

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

Not a notable company - all the references seem to be primary sources or press releases. I searched for news sources and found only prweb hits and other press releases. I searched for book sources and found this entry in "The Lawyer's Guide to Working Smarter with Knowledge Tools", but all it does is mention the company without giving any indication that it's notable.

The article has had quite a bit of history - it was nominated as a G11 speedy in November 2008 ([1]) which was removed ([2]) and then tagged as A7 ([3]). The A7 tag was removed by Jamwod (talk · contribs) ([4]), in violation of the rule that a creator cannot remove speedy tags from articles they created, and subsequently userfied ([5]). It was put back into mainspace following "improvement" ([6]) in January 2009 and nominated for A7 again yesterday ([7]). Given so many people have had a hand in speedy tagging the article, I feel a full AfD is the best way to settle this issue once and for all. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was the most recent speedy deletion tagger. Ritchie333 sums up my thoughts pretty well - this article is sourced mostly to press releases and primary, which one exception of the 'our CEO was quoted in an article' variety. Does not meet the general notability guideline and should be deleted. - MrOllie (talk) 10:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2013 (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.