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 no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exinda[edit]

Exinda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An extremely small and non notable company--the references are mostly just mentions, with some short notices, and a little PR. None of them provide a basis for an article. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
as I read that rather confusing DelRev, it was decided that since the basis for previous deletions was copyvio, that this should not prevent re-creation from a non-copyvio stub, and that an afd to discuss other factors could be held subsequently. There was no decision there about possible notability. We should have done this afd a lot earlier. DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In November 2014, Exinda released updates to its Network Orchestrator product. The updates included integrated captive portal policies, adaptive response quotas, and HTTP caching!" Etc.
WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH fail. Delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:29, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no exclamation mark in the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I personally don't view articles about companies as "spam" as some sort of immediate default. If one feels that content regarding the company's updates in the article serves as advertising, why not remove the two sentences, rather than the entire article? North America1000 01:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  21:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exinda has received sustained coverage between 2003 and 2012. Cunard (talk) 05:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the significant independent coverage WP:N needs, and also not the material exempt from WP:Deletion policy on WP:Not catalog. SwisterTwister talk 14:10, 21 November 2017 (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.