Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NetBrain

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. KTC (talk) 00:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NetBrain

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

Not notable. Every reference here is either a downright press release, or based on one. Bizjournals is not a reliable source for notbility. DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the creator has been blocked as a sock, WP:CSD#G5 might apply. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
G5 doesn't appear to qualify as the page "must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked", which isn't the case here. -- KTC (talk) 09:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 09:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: The CIO Review reference may rise above the nominator's description and actually provide some genuine 3rd party coverage. But that said, it just evidences a firm going about its business, and in the absence of finding anything better, I think the firm falls short of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 12:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with nom that the only available sourced are based off press releases. A search in factiva didn't find anything better. SmartSE (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2014 (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.