A whole lot of trivial coverage does not meet our requirements. Wikipedia does not exist for promotion. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Why is the coverage trivial? Yes, some of it is technical, as befitting its subject, but some, eg the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and Inc. articles, are mainstream. Cdulaney (talk) 15:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Cdulaney[reply]
restore or relist while the first few sources are trivial, most of the others are decent, including a couple of complete paragraphs on the subject. I think this new draft is reasonable (though I can't see the old one) though on the weak side and meets WP:N if just barely. If there remain doubts, let's send the draft back to AfD. Assuming it doesn't qualify as a recreation the nom could have put this draft into mainspace without DrV anyways. Hobit (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore - There is substantial new information via the references cited. The write up didn't let the reliable sources tell the story. Instead, the author thought of what would be good in the article to promote the company and added that. Straight to article space and AfD would be the way to go. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So should I revise the text to encompass more of the cited sources and then relist it in the old /SoftArtisans space with an Afd tag? Cdulaney (talk) 15:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Cdulaney[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
