Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AccelOps

:{{la|AccelOps}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd=Wikipedia%3AArticles+for+deletion%2F{{urlencode:AccelOps}} AfD statistics])

:({{findsources|AccelOps}})

No evidence of notability, author COI, possible sock/meat between only two proponents of the article. Every "reference" is to the company's own site, as are half of ELs. Other ELs link to PR rags. Speedy'd once, this is the same article re-pasted. Meatychode (talk) 01:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:NOTE; purely self-sourced references Fowartehlluz (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, self-promotional and non-notable. Lahnfeear (talk) 02:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• Strong if this is just a re-paste of the original Speedy'd article...Lahnfeear (talk) 02:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• Yep, definitely re-posted the same content. Comment on re-creation of the article is: "Scottgwikip (talk | contribs) (4,822 bytes) (Re-posted as previous Speedy deletion nomination of AccelOps is unfounded...)" This probably should have just been Speedy'd again. Lahnfeear (talk) 21:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, spammy; possible speedy. Hairhorn (talk) 02:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, at least one independent source or reference must be inserted --Rirunmot 22:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)
• Delete per nom.Sammael 42 (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

: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.