Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BVS Performance Systems

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. Mr.Z-man 04:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BVS Performance Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Recreated article after G11 speedy deletion, without much (if any) improvement. Still very little in the way of verifiable notability claims and still reads like an advertisement. Dougie WII (talk) 21:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Rather A7 than G11, still probably speediable, but personaly, I'd prefer the AfD to run, so it might be G4 (recreation of deleted material) in the future. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the opportunity to edit this page further and will work on it 11/28/07. It seems very comparable to me to other articles about businesses that I've seen but will attempt to improve and provide additional evidence of notability. Smithbernard (talk) 02:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC) I revised the article pretty substantially on Nov 28 and hope it will be found acceptable. Smithbernard 21:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 13:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:CORP. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't understand how this article fails those guidelines. The company is as notable as a good number of others that are linked to Learning Management System -- such as Saba Software, Apex Learning, ANGEL Learning, Desire2Learn -- and the content is similar in nature. If someone can advise me about where it doesn't measure up, I would appreciate some additional time to revise as needed. Thank you. Smithbernard (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2007 (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.