Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NetDNA

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. -- Cirt (talk) 21:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NetDNA

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotion for non-notable company, article by single-purpose user. 0 gnews hits and I have been unable to find any significant third-party coverage that would indicate the subject passes WP:GNG. Haakon (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, company is a legitimate CDN like Limelight, Edgecast, Akamai. There are numours blog posts about NetDNA as well as its sister company MaxCDN. Both of which have twitter accounts with notable reviews. There are also numerous private blog posts by idenendent contributors, like myself as well as customer testimonials cdnadvisor (talk) 10 March 2010 (UTC) — cndadvisor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- The article needs to cite sources. Can you give some URLs the notable reviews? My searches has yielded none. Haakon (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a content delivery network and an application delivery network service provider. Another minor tech business using Wikipedia for free publicity. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the sources thrown at this article are reliable. Its press release after press release. The article therefore falls well short of notability, which requires significant coverage in reliable sources. The reliable part is critical because when our articles can only cite press releases, wikipedia essentially becomes a promotional tool rather than an encyclopaedia. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2010 (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.