Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spectorsoft

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 to delete but clean-up the article to adhere to WP:NPOV and use independent sources.

Ozhiker nailed the relevant notability criteria - WP:CORP.

There is a subtle, but key difference, between Inc.'s list of the 500 fastest growing companies and a list of the top 500 companies in some field. The article asserts, without sourcing, that the company made the list of fastest growing companies two years in a row. Had it asserted making a list of top companies, that would have met WP:CORP, but still needed sourcing.
There are no independent sources cited in the article, although some are mentioned in the text that could potentially be used to write the article.
The only sources here are those introdiced by Budgiekiller. So the discussion boils down to evaluating those two sources. On inspection, each is non-trivial, and we can assume they are independent. But are they reliable? Nobody other than this user discussed these sources, so
1. I find the second, from Australian PC World, to be reliable. They show an editorial staff, publish corrections, and generally look like an online magazine.
2. The first is about.com. I'm not aware of any prior discussion as to whether they are a reliable source. However, when I look at their recruiting for guides; I find that they do want people with topical expertise. Although owned by the New York Times company, they certainly aren't the New York Times. I'm not sure whether this is reliable to our standards, and nobody discussed it, so I can't say the discussion produced consensus on this point.

That said, there was clear consensus that the article needs to be cleaned up to adhere to WP:NPOV. It probably needs a near total rewrite by someone who goes out, finds, and uses independent sources. GRBerry 03:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spectorsoft

Delete - this article provides no references that establish notability with respect to the WP:CORP criteria for companies and corporations or criteria for products and services. Its prose is promotional in nature and the article requires a complete rewrite to insure neutrality. The only significant contributor is a single purpose account, Techie guru (talk · contribs). This editor's attempts to link the article to other articles have been mostly reverted as spamming. The editor removed an {{ad}} notice with no attempt to remedy or discuss the article's obvious problems. The article was previously deleted with the notation "advert". It was recreated the next day and one edit summary stated: For some reason this page was deleted. I will watch it going forward as I am not sure what the issue was. This article is arguably speediable, but the contribution history of the editor suggests a full discussion would be most helpful in order to determine consensus. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 17:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep & rewrite. Spectorsoft are big all over the web (+220k Ghits) and although this article doesn't establish notability re:WP:CORP, their products are reviewed a few times [1], [2].Budgiekiller 17:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Number of Google listings is not a measure of notability - my webhost provider (lunarpages) has well over 2 million but doesn't have an wikipedia article - and it probably doesn't deserve one either. --Ozhiker 00:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ammendment: According to WP:CORP, a company article must assert notability of the company as follows:

Providing evidence of any of the following:

1) That the company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself.

2) That the company or corporation is listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications.3

3) That the company's or corporation's share price is used to calculate stock market indices.

As far as I can see, this article lists no references, hence does not provide this evidence, and hence is not currently a valid article. --Ozhiker 11:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appearing in the Inc. 500 is quite notable--that alone should be enough for WP:CORP, in my opinion--and the article lists a number of strong sources, although they need to be edited for specificity. The article could use some reorganization to sound less ad-like, but the company overall sounds like it deserves an article. Tarinth 19:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Hello All, I wanted to join in this discussion before any action was taken as I am the person that maintains this page. I guess I would like to start off with the entire concept of the article being a promotional issue. I see companies constantly being added to wikipedia and do not see how this would be any different. It is hard when you write about any specific company as many would see it as a bias, or promotional article because it is about one specific thing, a company. With regards to the link spamming that is being labeled for the article please allow me to explain my position. At some point a member read the article and indicated that I should link from other relevant articles to this article. I was following the direction of someone who I suspected to have been "in the know" longer than I, so i followed the suggestions. I do not spam, in fact, I have filed an AMA request so I could have someone mediate an issue about that exact thing. I do not think a link spammer would go through the effort of that and also responding to a deletion discussion either. With regards to deleting the "clean up" message, it was form an IP address. Just because someone says "hey it's me" and they are not logged in does not mean that some person that has mal content is not responsible for adding that message. In addition, I think it is only fair to note that I have done more than simply write an article and linked it everywhere. I have taken the time to review each article that I visit with regards to this one and in some instance I have edited other links, added more content that would be relevant to the article and so on. I have joined in on discussions and as you have stated, I have asked for help. I have received very little in the way of help and to be quite honest, why is it that I have not received any follow up's to the AMA i filed, and on the Spectorsoft article discussion? What i receive instead is a label to being a spammer or nomination to delete an article that I put a great deal of time and research in to. I have stated this in the AMA, and also to other people that I have had discussions with, if you can find, or help me find a better solution I am more than willing to discuss it. For example, I have been contemplating adding more content to the article and adding images. When I start to move forward with this, I end up pausing until I can clear up, or discuss any matters regarding the issue. I guess in closing that I would like to say that I am more than willing to work on the article under the guise of specific direction so the article would seem less "promotional", but please understand that bias is going to happen to a certain extent when you are writing about a specific company. I welcome responses. Thank you for your time Techie guru 14:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a final note on the spamming, it is also fair to note that the reverts were done by one specific person, not a group of different people. It’s also important to note that the person that was reverting was also in heated debates with other members for being the self appointed final word on a few articles. I encourage everyone to read up on that and you will see this is the case. Inadvertently because of that, i have been labeled a spammer by that person.Techie guru 14:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with JonHarder's comments above. The Spectorsoft page looks to have been created purely for promotional internal and external link-spam purposes. --Fedia 09:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Addhoc 20:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article looks entirely promotional and lacks NPOV. A product like this is expected to be controversial, but there is no outside commentary on the wisdom of the monitoring it provides. Also, while outside reviews are alluded to, they are not cited, so there's no way to judge if the statements are correct. There's no way to to tally the 'multiple non-trivial published works' that would be required to establish notability. EdJohnston 02:58, 15 January 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.