Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IBM Tivoli Application Dependency Discovery Manager

:{{la|IBM Tivoli Application Dependency Discovery Manager}} ([{{fullurl:IBM Tivoli Application Dependency Discovery Manager|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IBM Tivoli Application Dependency Discovery Manager}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Technical nomination: No admin seems to have been willing to delete this all day long after a speedy nomination, so I am bringing it to the community for a decision on whether this is hopelessly promotional and/or non-notable. Not my subject, and I have no particular opinion on the article. DGG (talk) 02:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Don't Delete. Some of the comments below indicate the content should be merged with the Tivoli Framework - The Tivoli Framework is over 15 years old and this TADDM entry is not based on the Tivoli Framework. This TADDM entry is for a product much like IBM DB2 - it has its own merits, product pages, and community of users - which we included links to. Is there other information you are looking for?mmallo (talk) 10:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Don't Delete. Hi - I cleaned up the market jargon. Please re-review. Beanolar (talk) 10:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. First of all, it's unreadable, at least for a general audience. There's no claim to notability and it's borderline spam (borderline because there's no actual spammy sales pitch). Hairhorn (talk) 02:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Any relevant content can be added to IBM Tivoli Framework. Doesn't look like the module is notable on its own, so it can continue to be covered in the main product page. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 03:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to IBM Tivoli Framework. The article itself is very promotional, and the product itself doesn't appear to be all that notable on its own, but it can't hurt to cover the whole framework as a whole more deeply. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC).
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Should have been G11'd as it was twice before. ukexpat (talk) 02:54, 7 June 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.