Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syncfusion

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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Syncfusion

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

Contested proposed deletion, not mine. Unambiguous advertisement for another back office software business. Article is essentially a product list, shot through with floridly non-neutral but deliberately uninformative text:

Comprehensive suite of Syncfusion's User Interface, Business Intelligence and Reporting components. Essential Studio Enterprise Edition features a high-performance WPF Grid, new Silverlight functionality, and Essential Reports....
Essential Studio Business Intelligence Edition includes OLAP-aware grid, chart, client, and gauge controls to help developers build WPF, Silverlight, and ASP.NET Business Intelligence applications....

Notability is not established by the uncited references, which are to internal sites, routine release reviews on tech spam-blogs, and press release based stories hosted at bizjournals; not enough to meet the business notability guideline. I found nothing better in GNews/Books/Scholar. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.

Delete - I can find lots of press releases but not significant independent coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried to do a Google search and was frustrated at not being able to find any independent, dispassionate, non-press-release info about this company or its products. Without any such independent reliable sources, I can't justify an article for this company. Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:06, 24 July 2011 (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.