Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blogtronix

Blogtronix

Around 200 unique Googles, every instance of the name Blogtronix is weblinked, release 1.0 in August, no external sources, no evidence of meeting WP:SOFTWARE or WP:CORP. Article is the work of GeorgeAthannassov (talk · contribs), a person of that (unusual) name is the COO of Blogtronix. User's contributions are restricted to adding and puffing Blogtronix. Pretty fair evidence of meeting WP:SPAM. Just zis Guy you know? 19:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Question and remark from George, What do I need to change so the Blogtronix article and company info stays in Wikipedia structure. We are a legidimate coprorate structure in US. If the weblinkage is a problem - I would immeaditely remove it

George: I did put the article. I removed the web links to Blogtronix website.

You need to include verifiable references to non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources, supporting the criteria listed at WP:CORP and [WP:SOFTWARE]] (inclusion guidelines). Just zis Guy you know? 19:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

George: Thank you for the remarks. Can we consider these as references:

Ernst & Young - VP of Internal Communications - Rod Boothby

http://www.innovationcreators.com/2006/04/blogtronix_is_web_office_techn.html

http://www.enterpriseweb2.com/?p=67 - Jerry Bowles

And Robert Scoble, Ex-Microsoft Chief Blogger and now PodTech VP: http://scobleizer.wordpress.com/2005/10/31/i-totally-screwed-up-on-post-about-blogtronix/

http://scobleizer.wordpress.com/2006/04/27/another-test-of-is-microsoft-listening/

George again: another article mentioning Blogtronix in BusinessWeek:

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jul2006/tc20060718_932217.htm

Delete per nom. Still spam--Anthony.bradbury 20:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

From George: Anthony, please indicate what I need to change so it is not considered as a spam. What is it different than the article for Movable Type? open the movable type article and tell me what is different! I will chaneg what I have to to have Blogtronix included in Wikipedia but you guys are not helping here, I know you are editors, not support center but the guidlines are not clear what i need to remove especially when I have the example with Movable type. They are in the same position we are in!

George: I edited the article additionaly - please check and advise.

• • Honestly speaking: There is no hope for your article at this point. It will be deleted. Change your company and your software first, before considering whether they deserve a Wikipedia article. Get mentioned on Forbes 500, become a Dow Jones companent stock, and get your software featured (not just mentioned in passing) in 5 newspapers first, and we might reconsider. Nothing's wrong with the article, it's the company (and the software) that isn't notable enough for an article at this stage. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 20:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; blatant vanispamcruftisement. Ryūlóng 20:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

George: What is "blatant" here? Does this mean you have double standards? Movable type can be included together with SixApart and Blogtronix can not. What is different in the two articles - none of the editors here can not point out. Did you check the latest update I just did? Compare it wtih Movable type and tell me where is the difference

• • Comment As it stands, this article is an advertisement, not an encyclopedia article. To have a shot at being kept, you'd have to rewrite it to be an objective analysis of the company. As it stands, my vote will be Delete. Danny Lilithborne 20:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

George: OK, I Understand. Thank you. I will take out some of the information that can be considered as an advertisement immediately.

George: I changed the article again. Danny, can you check it again. Awyong Jeffrey - I think your statement is a little incorrect. Being first in more than one aspects should allow us to be included in Wikipedia. Plus we do have way more than 5 articles about us in newspapers. We can not become Forbes or Fortune 500 company in 18 months but we are aiming there. There is nothing wrong with our software or company type - you do not know the Corporate Blogging software industry to state that We can not be included because we are nobody. I am honestly seeking advise how we can be inclued in wikipedia,i am not arguing with the editors. I need advise what to do as I am certain my opinion is valid as well as the infromation for Blogtronix which should reside in Wikipedia

another comment - TechCrunch

http://www.techcrunch.com/2005/08/18/profile-blogtronix/

Plus the google results are over 162,000 !

Another one - Blogtronix is BlogOn Social Media Innovator: http://www.blogonevent.com/blogon2005/exhibitors/

The Latest Conference Office 2.0 Blogtronix is Key speaker company and Sponsor http://www.office20con.com/sponsors.html

http://www.office20con.com/speakers.html

This is Vassil Mladjov, founder and ceo of Blogtroix. One think I don't understan here is what are you guys talking about. Blogtronix is a company incorporate in the US, CA in Aug 2005. We like, SocialText, SixApart, WordPress, JotSpot and many others make web 2.0 software and services. Why are any of our competitors here in Wikipedia and we can't be here. You guys have many articles about software company for wikis and blogging [[1]], we are just one of these companies.

[[2]]