Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Echoworx

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 keep. Tone 22:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Echoworx

Echoworx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-notable company. Article created by what appears to be a marketing company. Prod template deleted by new user that has not dome anything but edit for this company and only appeared after the initial prod. noq (talk) 23:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notability is questionable. This company from waht I can see, has not made any significant impact to be considered. Wikipedia not a directory. Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 01:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, spam. NTK (talk) 21:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Notable article with third party references marygillwiki (talk) 10:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Notable article with informative history and verifiable sources monicaready (talk) 10:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Discount the two above comments saying to keep? It clearly appears that both users are the same person using different account in attempting to save this article. This goes against
  WP:SOCK. There are too many similarities in both account; all of their edits are all related to this article and one of them has only one edit... [1] Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 19:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• No affiliations to any other accounts. thanks. marygillwiki (talk), 17:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no evidence of
  spam as well. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - In checking search results, my reaction is "My God! It's full of press releases!" However, buried in that is actual coverage from
  reliable sources such as Network World, eWeek, CTV, and IT Business. -- Whpq (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Non-notable spam. TNXMan 14:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Can you explain why the sources I listed above don't establish notability? -- Whpq (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Sources are there for
  ^Talk 12:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep. The sources listed above establish notability.
  Phil Bridger (talk) 09:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep ZDNET is reliable for notability. (& there are other good refs) DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 26 September 2009 (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.