Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PolarLake

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 AFD discussion closed as moot. Article has already been speedily deleted by Graeme Bartlett as a copyright violation. Will salt this as repeatedly recreated; has been deleted several times in the past, and other speedy deletion criteria applied to those past versions. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PolarLake[edit]

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

The article makes no unambiguous claims of notability for the company and includes odd promotional claims such as "75% faster" without any independent reliable sources or clarification as to what the number means. The 11 footnoted citations are mostly regurgitations of the company's press release which includes the claim "the world’s first Reference Data Specific Enterprise Search capability" in the title which is not notable as there are no independent sources that would demonstrate this as true and the claim is so qualified in such a way to be almost meaningless. I find no appropriate sources on GNews archives and only magazine matches through GBooks of the slightly tangential product review type. The article fails WP:V and WP:ORG. Fæ (talk) 09:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 09:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a copyvio of [1], [2], and [3]. Article so tagged. Goodvac (talk) 09:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
speedy deleted as copyvio Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:08, 12 April 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.