Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Time Action Technology (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 Speedy delete. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Real Time Action Technology

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

A requested speedy delete as advertisement was queried by this message to me: Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Anthony, I see that you have deleted my article on real time action technology. Although I have been using wikipedia as a reader for several years, this was my first contribution as a writer. There has recently been a surge of content regarding implementations of real time action technologies but there is no content on wikipedia. As such, I attempted to write an article on it but it keeps getting deleted. I have rewritten the article in a more academic tone and am ready to resubmit but I'm not sure what the process is as my initial posting was flagged and subsequently deleted. Any guidance you can give would be greatly appreciated.B2Btechguy (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again, speedily and with a vengeance. Article creator has done nothing to address the concerns raised in the first AfD. Of the five references, three are to the one company which uses this term, and the other two don't mention the term at all. There is still zero evidence that the term itself has any sort of notability, and as User:AllyD pointed out last time, the content largely overlaps that of existing articles. In addition, the page creator's claim that the tone is "academic" is absurd – you'd be hard-pressed to find a more promotional tone. This article was speedily deleted on its way to a snowball AfD, and it's still in a speediable state – User:Anthony Appleyard's decision to restore it (without even notifying the creator) was inappropriate and a waste of everyone's time. He could have restored the article to draft or userspace at the creator's request; his decision to restore to mainspace is mind-boggling. —Swpb^talk 13:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG with poor quality spam references and original research. Theroadislong (talk) 14:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete again: Repeating my position from the previous AfD that was curtailed by a G11 deletion: A WP:SPA article whose references are either to a firm which uses this term or to generic coverage of other terms. There is significant overlap with existing articles on Decision support system and Customer relationship management and I am not seeing anything indicating distinct use of this term outside the one firm who have this as a trademark term. AllyD (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2015 (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.