Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ElectionMall Technologies

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ElectionMall Technologies

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

Cloud computing services provider focusing on political campaigns. The article relies exclusively on press releases, blogs and similarly questionable sources, and I see no reliable sources on the topic in the wild. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, and note also WP:Articles for deletion/Campaign Cloud, its not notable product. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Service Cloud Computing for political campaigns exist on two servers: Nation Builder (http://nationbuilder.com/) and Campaign Cloud (http://www.campaigncloudos.com/), the latter was developed by ElectionMall. On the other hand, took it as such other items to re-edit this. - Gaville Sahavit (talk) 12:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This would make sense if the article was about the tool, but it is about the company instead. Per WP:PRODUCT the notability of companies isn't inherited from products, so your rationale simply doesn't apply. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article was re-write not like a press release or a product, everyone can re-read and cheack this point. - Gaville Sahavit (talk) 07:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.60.90.125 (talk) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SW— ^confess 21:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable, not neutral. Reads like an advertisement. Unreliable sources.DocTree (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2012 (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.