Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NetCrunch (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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NetCrunch

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

I am uncertain about notability, but pretty sure about promotionalism. This was nominated for speedy in bad faith, by an editor whose article was rejected , but that doesn't necessarily mean it should be kept. It needs an analysis of the reviews. DGG ( talk ) 21:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 23:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 23:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 23:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not finding any significant coverage in reliable sources. Does not appear to meet notability guidelines. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: These is nothing here except promotions. Agree with Nominee. Light2021 (talk) 20:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete clearly the article is just a bullet list of promotional terms. The company would have a better argument for being notable as a subject; it looks like there was an article on the company that got nominated for deletion and then redirected back to this article. See this revision from a year and a half ago. Best scenario would be to reverse the redirect, and write a neutral tone article on the company, which has been around almost 20 years. Probably being based in Eastern Europe makes it harder for an English work. But not clear if anyone has the time and skills to do that now, e.g. userify these two and rewrite? W Nowicki (talk) 17:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as corporate spam. Nothing to salvage here & let's not encourage the spammers by keeping such articles (see
WP:BOGOF); this just wastes volunteer editors' time. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and Salt as I meant to comment sooner, everything is advertising as the nomination show and the the fact there's been the noticeable state and persistence of advertising is self-explanatory. The only solutions for these situations is to delete them and make sure they are not restarted with unconvincing information and sources, as such is now. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 10 October 2016 (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.