Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MiniFrame

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. -- Cirt (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MiniFrame[edit]

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

Delete The article was nominated for speedy deletion under CSD A7 (No indication of importance or significance), but I have declined the speedy deletion because I think there is just enough claim of importance to justify putting it to a discussion. However, I see no evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines. The sources cited in the article are largely links to the company's own site, articles on industry promotional web sites, blogs, press releases, etc, and what little there is that could possibly be considered independent consists of passing mentions, and falls far short of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The article was written by a single purpose account with no edits at all apart from this article and links to MiniFrame in other articles, and the account appears to belong to an editor with a conflict of interest. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC) JamesBWatson (talk) 09:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established through independent third party sources. Most of the sources, as stated above, are variations of press releases, and those few that are not don't meet the threshold for notability. Seaphoto^Talk 18:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although that shouldn't come as a surprise since I nominated the article for speedy deletion. As mentioned above, almost all of the sources are press releases or other promotional material. The only (remotely) verifiable or reliable sources mention the company in passing. (Funny, one of those "reliable" blogs actually acknowledges that they only wrote about the company after the company's public relations team asked them to do so. I guess that's one point for journalistic transparency, eh?) I just don't think the company is notable based on any of the (very few) available sources. jæs (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: spamming the web with press releases and linking to such press releases doesn't make a product notable. Quest09 (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Not sure why this Companies entry should be considered for deletion. They produce cutting edge Virtual Desktop technology and even have been recognised with an award from Frost & Sullivan (as cited in their Wiki Page)- http://www.frost.com/prod/servlet/press-release.pag?docid=202643462 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.187.32.165 (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2010 (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.