Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SimpleCDN

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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SimpleCDN

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than to promote SimpleCDN. References given are to splogs that do not confer notability; and to press releases and partners that do not count as reliable sources. Nothing more than Self-promotional Advertisement masquerading as an article and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 07:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; article is advertising. Haakon (talk) 08:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, unambiguous advertising: Geared towards smaller and International companies, SimpleCDN offers delivery services with instant setup times, free of long-term contracts or commitments. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Content is blatant advertising, and the sources are promotional pieces themselves (press releases, partners, advert-blogs, etc). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Smeeedy delete per Smerdis. JBsupreme (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with reservation. I'm not sure where this falls but I had a talk on a different website about this article with the author (I presume). The author was expressing his desire to keep this article and the link on the [Content delivery network] (CDN) page because it was good at generating sales leads. However he did express concern that a rival company was likely the cause of an edit war removing his link on CDN. Oh Snap (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He did seem to think that I represent one or two of his competitors [1]. Haakon (talk) 09:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Its the tendentious nature of single purpose accounts to falsley accuse others or misrepresent facts to benifit their interests. Promotional accounts find it difficult to come to terms with the realization that one's business, interests, or existence in general are not relevant to the rest of the world and while not mentioned explicitly, commonly falls somewhere in the five stages of grief. Best to ingore, clearly unfounded in reality.--Hu12 (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing I can find to satisfy WP:CORP. Cocytus [»talk«] 04:52, 11 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.