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) 00:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SevOne[edit]

A user added a CSD. It doesn't meet that criteria, but I'm not letting the article off the hook just yet. LAA Fan^sign _review 22:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. A single mention, and that's a press release in google news. Comment by User:VasileGaburici. Sorry, my bad google fu, so keep. VG ☎ 12:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- There are additional results if you expand the search to all dates (not just the past month), but many are press releases. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I understand the problem with the wikipedia SevOne page. It offers a neutral viewpoint and gives a reader a basic understanding of what SevOne is. I have read the Wikipedia: Deletion policy (Reasons for deletion) and do not see a reason for the SevOne page to be killed off. Other pages that are very similar to the SevOne page that are not in danger of deletion are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netqos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bentley_Systems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WSFS_Bank

I can not see a difference between these pages and the SevOne page. Please let me know what actions I need to take to insure that the SevOne page remains on Wikipedia.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwmetz (talk • contribs) 13:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that this article should be kept because other articles exist is typically disregarded, because each article is judged on its own merits - you might want to review WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for more detail. On point, The article is sourced with four references - two to a NetworkWorld article, one to the company's website, and one to a press release. I'd want to see more independent news coverage before choosing to Keep this article. I'd also note that items that seem neutral, such as a list of clients, can seem promotional if there is little other content. The list of officers, for example, can be safely removed - I believe such a list would be found on the company's website, yes? UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I reformatted the citations and added some new references. Using ((cite news)) for news references makes it easier for other editors to spot and evaluate one's sources. On the basis of the coverage in InfoWorld and Network World and the award from Technology Marketing Corporation (TMC) - Communications Solutions, I think the article now passes notability. --Eastmain (talk) 01:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Concur, the additional (independent) sources demonstrate some notability. It's thin, but I'll take it. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 02:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thank you for everyones help. What's next to get rid of the AfD message. gwmetz(talk)
- Comment- let this discussion run its course. In around five days' time the discussion will close and, if the consensus is to keep the article, the AfD tag will be removed. Reyk _YO! 21:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep- it looks a trifle spammy to me, but on the strength of the sources I can't support deletion. Reyk _YO! 21:02, 30 September 2008 (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.