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. Courcelles (talk) 20:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TrueNAS[edit]

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

The more I look at this the more to seems to be an article promoting a particular unit. I see it was recently created from WP:AFC. The history shows that it was accepted pending a redirect's removal. I have edited it to clear the AfC banners. If reviewing it I would have viewed it as an advert and pushed it back to the creating editor. Now it is in the main namespace I am doing the same thing by nominating it for deletion.

I have sample checked the references. Those I checked do nothing to dispel my feeling that this is an advert. Others may wish to check the remainder. Fiddle Faddle 09:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

Self-trout I've now removed a chunk of what I read to be blatant advertising I didn't catch when initially commenting that I would approve the AfC. samtar ^(msg) 10:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you Samtar for doing that. Now I can see the wood from the trees I see PR material in the references and nothing that shows significant coverage which is independent of the topic and is in WP:RS. I can now no longer see an advert, but I can see something that fails to pass WP:GNG Fiddle Faddle 10:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would love to believe it could be improved and made semi-notable. Unfortunately a quick google of the term has so far only returned semi-decent sources, most of which are pretty promotional. In terms of my !vote here, I'd have to concede and admit I let a bad article through. samtar ^(msg) 11:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Delete: Per above. samtar ^(msg) 11:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I found nothing better than links at News, Books, browser and Highbeam and there's nothing to suggest better improvement at this time. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 5 October 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.