Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RenderX

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) 00:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RenderX[edit]

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

There are questions regarding the notability of this product and organization. The article is based primarily on the work of a single editor, Siringa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), the majority of whose edits are related to adding this company's products. The article has been recreated three times following speedy deletion, each time by the same user. Ckatz^chat _spy 21:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs work, but it's not offensively addy. The company is quite well known and notable. Maybe the product articles can be merged into this article. --24dot (talk) 08:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I take issue with 24dot's characterization the article is not offensively addy. The article reads like a marketing brochure. The company doesn't meet the notability guidelines. JakeZ (talk) 08:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, not notable, and unambiguous advertising even if it were: . RenderX provides tools - from pre-built applications to integration kits - to solve various business needs of getting XML content into printable formats such as PDF, PostScript and AFP. RenderX has provided many valuable services to the XSL-FO community. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think it needs revising, but it doesn't seem that offensive. I definitely think it's notable enough to keep around. Apple Inc. uses this software for at least one of their developer docs (the most important one, IMO); that was why I came here in the first place. --Evil Eccentric (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am assuming Smerdis looked through that mess of references and found them lacking. Miami33139 (talk) 05:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam/COI concerns, sources do not appear to be reliable; all are either press releases or blogs. GlassCobra 23:11, 25 November 2009 (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.