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. Consensus is that the article is not currently salvageable. I am willing to userfy if anyone wants to take a crack at rewriting - just let me know. Mojo Hand (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CounterPath Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Blatant advertisement, cited primarily to the company itself instead of to independent, reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a venue for corporate self-promotion. K7L (talk) 03:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. War wizard90 (talk) 05:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. War wizard90 (talk) 05:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. War wizard90 (talk) 05:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete: WP:G11. There's too much advertising to bother digging in to see if it's notable. Vrac (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - There are more than enough third party cites to be WP:GNG. Yes, it is too promotional, but that is something to fix, not a reason to delete. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep: False nomination: plenty of independent references in the text. The language is neutral, ie not "blatant advert" (if I missed something, easy to fix). Surprisingly many wikipedians confuse product desrtiption with "advertisement". Reasonable notability: Publicly traded company, multiple industry awards, claimed #7 in Canada in mobile telephony. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Notability is marginal, but the article is promotional enough to WP:TNT anyway (which looks to be the deletion rationale rather than notability). The creator of the page is an SPA whose only edits were to create this promotional article, an article for one of CrossBeam's products, EyeBeam (software), and various edits to other pages to link to those two. The article has all the hallmarks of paid editing, too: content that would be just as at home on the company website, a long list of awards, long bulletpointed company history/accomplishments, and a massive spammy list of mostly horrible references (i.e. compiled for length). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There are two WP:SPAs, not one, one of which (which I won't name...) has the same name as appears on the company's press releases. WP:COI is clear. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EyeBeam (software) was already nominated for deletion once, but oddly only on notability and not as clear corporate advertising. It's also a mess of self-serving press releases and long lists of minor accolades from obscure trade publications which exist just to sell advertising to companies in this one narrow industry. Upon reading both articles, it isn't clear from the text why these are notable topics. There's too much fluff here to find any real substance. Furthermore, X-Lite and eyeBeam look to be built on the same code base (as of X-Lite 3.0) with X-Lite the lobotomised version. We don't need three pages about this company... I'm not confused; this isn't a useful product description, it's an advertisement. K7L (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - If one were to gut all of the non-encyclopedic material, we would be left with a tiny stub and still no indication of notability. Does not meet WP:NCORP, particularly CORPDEPTH. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete on a WP:TNT basis, I think there might be enough here to meet WP:CORP, but with signficant phrasings taken from press releases scattered throughout the article ("lets Canadians use their wireless numbers to enable single-number reachability by talk and text"), a copyright clean and removal of mild but consistent promotional non-encyclopedic language will fundamentally require a rewrite from scratch. --j⚛e decker^talk 07:57, 4 February 2015 (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.