Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Replay Solutions

: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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

=[[Replay Solutions]]=

:{{la|Replay Solutions}} ([{{fullurl:Replay Solutions|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Replay Solutions}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Delete, Doesn't establish third party notability Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

:keep . Notability is satisfied by multiple, non-trivial coverage of the company by 3rd party sources of the highest order, including the New York Times and Cnet, which are given as references. Hadashot Livkarim (talk) 03:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Speedy Keep. AfD nomination within [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Replay_Solutions&diff=295907193&oldid=295906464 six minutes] of article creation when three sources - NY Times, CNET and San Jose Business Journal were included in references. Also in one minute of Google news search, I have found: [http://www.infoworld.com/d/developer-world/app-replay-extended-java-397 InfoWorld], a trivial mention in [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122227789668471847.html?mod=googlewsj Wall Street Journal] and a good bit on BizJournals (some of which is just PR, so excludable). -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 03:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Reliable, indepth references exist. Not much more else to say. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep—subject seems notable. Wikipedia has a general anti-business trend and many otherwise popular companies don't have articles. However, this one is well-sourced and does not read like an advertizement. No reason I can see to delete. —Ynhockey (Talk) 17:38, 17 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.