Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ektron (2nd nomination)

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) 07:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ektron

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

Promotion for non-notable company; given sources are non-significant, and I was only able to find press release coverage when searching. Haakon (talk) 10:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this may meet WP:COMPANY. This source is already in the article, and it looks like significant coverage to me. This also is worth looking at. And this press release puts forth a strong claim to notability, as a third-party magazine has included the company in a list of "Top 100 Companies That Matter Most" just last month. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see nothing but press releases. Yawn. JBsupreme (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All references are self posted (cmswire references are paid news releases, they are not trusted 3rd party coverage as required by policy). Frivolous coverage and braggy (has more than.. employs over.. flagship.. unreferenced promotional statements). Delete as per WP:N and WP:Spam - --DustyRain (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as it fails WP:SPAM. This article makes no claim to notability in accordance with either WP:WEB or WP:CORP, nor is there any significant coverage to support such a claim. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:03, 13 January 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.