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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Solutionary[edit]

Solutionary (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)

Most of the link are PR. Some notability asserted, but on the edge Arthistorian1977 (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Managed Security Service page references the "13 most significant vendors" in a Forrester Research report, and one of those is Solutionary. Of those 13, all but Solutionary have their own Wikipedia entry, and five are already linked-to by the Managed Security Service article. I have identified at least two other Wikipedia articles which also reference Solutionary. Rdb112 (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This would need further available in-depth third-party sources overall to be a better notable and acceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable and promotional.No actually substantial sources. We should probably look at the other articles also. There are several hundred thousand of articles in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower that we need to either upgrade or remove. The least we can do is not add to them. DGG ( talk ) 07:02, 3 February 2016 (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.