Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AppDynamics

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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AppDynamics

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

I do not think anything here shows notability. It sems mainly as a excuse for mentioning the names of people in the field who they hired. DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as it has been mainly covered in a Wall Street Journal that helps it kind of pass GNG. I think we might've come to a point were some users are taking this WP:CORPSPAM issue too seriously. Otherwise, a merge to a related article would also work. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 20:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability established by refs. Specifically: [1], [2], [3], [4]. ~Kvng (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain basically but I think I'll go with Draft & Userfy because my own searches found a few links at Books, News and browsers but noticeably quite a few press releases so this also affects my questionability, especially with the article not seem convincing enough to simply keep as is. SwisterTwister talk 07:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 1 March 2016 (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.