Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TalkSwitch

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. The content of the article is not overtly promotional to the point where it would qualify for speedy deletion. I actually find that assertion a bit puzzling since the nominator has been involved in editing this article since 2008 and has had more than ample opportunity to fix any content problems. The desires of the owners of the organization regarding this article are not at all relevant. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TalkSwitch

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

The company page has been previously listed for speedy deletion, and the firm has been bought by Fortinet who do not wish this page to be kept updated on Wikipedia. Tim Welch (talk) 02:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure an article can be deleted for that reason. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 03:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Fair enough, however I would state this article never met WP:CORPDEPTH and likely should have been a candidate for WP:SPEEDY in 2010 under section G11 when the article was not edited for {{db-spam}}. Perhaps it would be better to relist for deletion under {{db-g11}} however either way the article in my view is (a) unwanted by it's new publicly traded owners, (b) was never complete or acceptable and is in reality using Wikipedia as WP:SOAP and should be deleted.

Tim Welch (talk) 12:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Agree with Erpert. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 19:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 11 May 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.