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 No Consensus article is in need of attention and the line between the language and the company needs to be addressed. Sources provided are borderline 2 mentioned here look like primary sources and the third is very weak. COI and adverstising content should be addressed but afd isnt a cleanup process. Gnan garra 11:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zlango

Cleverly disguised spam. This article is heavily self-referenced, with extensive mentions of the company name and product, and was probably created to generate maximim Ghits. There are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability, just citations from the company website. Gavin Collins (talk) 13:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - spam. Author creates an article with "refs" in their only 3 edits? Special:Contributions/FerventTomato an experienced spam artist. --Jack Merridew 13:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Excessive use of product/company name throughout article sure makes it read like spam. More importantly, no independent sources; 'references' provided are all self-provided, blogs, or both.

Keep per sources provided by Wikidemo; I must not have hit the archives when I searched Google news. Maralia (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep. Any tech company receiving $12 million funding from front tier VC is more or less inherently notable, and it would be a hole in our attempt to cover the field to omit such articles. Plus, here are two independent reliable sources with substantial articles about the company.[1][(unreliable source - do not use) www.postchronicle.com/news/technology/article_21225439.shtml]. Suggest using google before nominating articles for deletion.Wikidemo (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IPO's come and go, and the references you cite are clearly PR pieces to promote the company and its products, and cannot be considered reliable. It seems they used some of the their start up money to garner publicity; just like they have created this article as a Ghit farm. --Gavin Collins (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Those are newspaper articles. "Ghit farm" does not compute. What does an IPO have to do with anything? Jerusalem Post is a major newspaper, not a PR wire. And United Press International is a significant reliable wire service, to say the least. Having major substantive coverage in these two reliable sources obviously satisfies corporate notability. If we are going to have such criteria we might as well use them. But if you want to go to underlying utility of this information to an encyclopedia project, as I said you can't cover tech without covering the top tier VC funded startup companies. Wikidemo (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article is about a product, not the company itself. Be sure and watch for that to appear… —Jack Merridew 07:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — See the six other languages inter-wiki-linked from the English one; they all have the same basic pattern of creation by a single purpose account; mostly in the username Candaro which does exist here but with no edits: [2]. --Jack Merridew 10:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sorry I couldn't find better sources. I specifically used the references that link to Zlango Ltd.'s blog strictly to show the products Zlango released and where it released them, which can be seen by where they were positioned in the article. I'm new in Wikipedia (long time reader, short time contributer), and I'd appreciate any insight on how to improve the article. I tried to find as many things needed to use in a brand new article, but I guess from from the page history I missed quite a few... FerventTomato (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There's an AP article that briefly mentions Zlango by Matt Moore. I can't help but note that the arguments for delete focus mainly on the author and on reference issues then on the article itself, though... Should the article be about the language or the company, or both, if it is to exist at all? DukeEGR93 02:50, 29 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.