NIKSUN, Inc. ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Doesn't seem to meet the criteria for "unambiguous promotion" based on Wikipedia's guidelines for a speedy deletion which says an article that is "exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion. Note: Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion."

Sorry if I did this wrong by the way - new to this editing thing :) Please let me know if there's anything I missed. Thanks. Cyber defend ( talk) 14:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Temporarily undeleted for review. I can't blame zat Guy too much for speedying the article as it was ("the father of packet capture"? Really?), but there's neutrally-written revisions that it could've been reverted to, like this one. — Cryptic 18:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• A spammy article whose editors are almost exclusively SPAs. Guy ( Help!) 20:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• ( edit conflict)Also note the many, many deletions at Niksun and the handful at NIKSUN, which make me much less favorably-inclined toward restoration. There's (very short) neutral revisions at the latter too, but for many years this article has been consistently and almost immediately replaced with promotion whenever it's been created. — Cryptic 20:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Yeah sorry, I hope I didn't make any edits that sounded promotional, stuff like "father of packet capture" was there before I decided to help edit it - but I would be more than happy to help you guys clean it up. Cyber defend ( talk) 20:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the article was very promotional at the time of deletion, to the point where deleting it under G11 was an entirely reasonable call. While it was technically possible to revert to a neutral version, those versions date back to less than two weeks after the article was created back in October 2014, and the history of the article since has largely consisted of SPAs adding more spam. Given this I'm not inclined to give the benefit of the doubt here. Hut 8.5 21:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse and salt. I'm heartily sick of these people using our encyclopaedia for their marketing.— S Marshall T/ C 18:51, 14 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• restore and revert The article at the time of deletion needed to go, but [1] isn't spammy at all. Semiprotect if needed. Hobit ( talk) 07:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• endorse and salt In the earlier version referred to, ref 1 is a press release in conjunction with their exhibit at a show, , ref 2 is "emerging" = NOTYETNOTABLE.. 3 is a mention in a list.. There is no foundation for a non promotional article. DGG ( talk ) 20:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC) reply