Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assuria Log Manager

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assuria Log Manager

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

Dubious claims of notability, government link is an internal catalogue link rather than something conferring notability, all that's left is one magazine award. PROD was removed in August with promises of improvement; this hasn't happened. Part of the Assuria apparent spam cluster; see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assuria CyberSense. Suggest salting these names and variants used in the wild. David Gerard (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and it's not surprising searches are not finding anything, all of the listed information simply goes to specify what it is and what else is involved in its business, there's nothing to suggest independent notability and substance, and that's what we would've needed. SwisterTwister talk 21:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt per above. Jdcomix (talk) 21:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as "corporate spam", with typical WP:PROMO language. "Salt" too. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, does not pass WP:Corp and has WP:promo problems, as well. Kierzek (talk) 12:53, 30 September 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.