Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qliktech

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. John254 01:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Qliktech

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

)

• Weak Keep among the press releases is evidence of RS coverage. That said, this has been speedied 3x. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 20:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not only is it non-notable, the page appears to be nothing but an advertisement. Here's what I mean: "...their patented in-memory associative technology, which to this day is the main competitive advantage in the market." Player 03 (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'll remove my vote. I'm no longer convinced that the company is non-notable, and the page seems to be getting better. I would tag it for cleanup, but I'm not sure if that is generally accepted in the middle of a deletion discussion. Player 03 (talk) 01:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I added some references. I think that notability is now established. If this article survives AfD, it should be moved to
  QlikTech International --Eastmain (talk) 22:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 22:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It needs references, cleanup and removal of advert-like clauses, but it is definitely notable enough for inclusion. Hymyly^T@C 19:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I must congratulate this company's marketing department on their industriousness - I've never seen quite so many press releases listed on a Google News search - but as Cari says there are reliable sources amongst them to demonstrate notability, e.g. [1] [2] as well as the ones added to the article by Eastmain.
  Phil Bridger (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2008 (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.