Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/7th Age of Computing

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. Wizardman 04:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

7th Age of Computing

Appears to be a neologism coined as marketing campaign for future products (see last paragraph). Content is an original research essay promoting said products, or at best a summary of one company's promotional literature. I listed it as spam for speedy deletion initially, but it was referred to afd by reviewing administrator. Mycroft7 (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it appears to be some sort of viral ad campaign/spam that has been popping up all over the internet in recent days. Please delete. WildCowboy (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

update, author statement copied from talk page:

OK this article is factual in nature not promotional. It is seeking to explain the historical development of computing tools in a conceptual history. There are many companies mentioned in the article not one. It is modeled on the history of the microprocessor article in wiki.

If we remove all mention of companies who have contributed to the different ages of computing tool development there would be no context and no meaning.

Finally I would ask this question does this article contribute to the discussion of computing history, does it not throw light on the current and past developments and does it not conceptualize it in an original way which has never existed before.

Finally wiki was always meant as a mechanism for people to share views and I think a discussion on conceptual history of computing should be something you guys would be keen to support.

If the people who read it think we have overstepped the mark anywhere into self promotion the article will be rewritten anyway by readers.

I would urge you to foster this discussion. [unsigned]

comment: The second to last sentence of this statement seems to affirm that it is self-promotion (if not necessarily bad-faith), but even if it were rendered neutral it would still at least be original research, neologism, and unverifiable prediction (WP:NOT#OR, WP:NEO, WP:FUTURE). I stand by the nomination. Mycroft7 (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone finds some reliable sources that demonstrate this is not just a self-promoting neologism. I'm not holding my breath. Reyk _YO! 22:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Marketing spam. Large parts of the text are copied from www.infini.com. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article is a vehicle for spam. -- Whpq (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Delete regardless of whether this is considered spam or not. It's not shown that these concepts even exist outside the marketing campaign. There are no sources at all and nothing else that would indicate even minor notability. Averell (talk) 08:25, 1 August 2008 (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.