Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FatWire

: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. MBisanz talk 06:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

=[[FatWire]]=

:{{la|FatWire}} ([{{fullurl:FatWire|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FatWire}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

I googled 'fatwire' to find out what that software was.

Top hit was the company website www.fatwire.com.

Naturally I chose the next hit which was wikipedia.

The page is blatant advertising. It is written entirely in corporate self advertisment style.It contains no discussion of the company or its products. It is not neutral. It contains a number of claims which are debatable to say the least.

There is no added value above going to the company website and reading similar material there, except possibly that wiki is better laid out.

This is not what I would expect of wikipedia. Possibly fatwire could be included in a list of web content management software on a page about that, if there is such a thing.

Walworth (talk) 10:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC) Text copied from article's talk page. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 12:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

:*Regular delete, see below. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Maybe keep I re-wrote the article. It no longer reads like marketing drivel from a sales brochure. Still no claim of notability and poor references. To be honest, I deleted most of the possible references because they were tied to sales like writing. They are in the history if this is kept and someone wants to spend more effort to improve this article. Miami33139 (talk) 01:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep. Miami, I'm not going to be the one to rewrite the article, but whoever feels the urge, [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=fatwire&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tab=wn here's] a Google News search, whose results clearly establish the company's notability. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. The Google News search discloses mostly a number of stories or press release copies about acquisitions, or confluences of the words "fat" and "wire". The only possible RS I found on the first few pages was a 2001 review in PC Magazine of a $70,000.00 software package: that is a dead link. Given the dates, it is possible that the review was for a product of a different company. I don't see this article making the case for importance of this non-consumer tech business. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

:Note: What a drag it is to try and look for articles NOT provided by AccessMyLibrary (or PR Newswire)--I wish Google News had the option to look for non-press release-type publications (does it?). Still, [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940CE0DF1039F930A25752C0A9649C8B63 this article] from the NYT already takes the notability case halfway there, and [http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/02/04/09/020409hnfatwire.html this article] is not a press release, though it cites from it, I think. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete Thanks for your efforts. Especially in trying to rewrite which I was lazy /unsure to do. I am still not sure it provides much value beyond information available from the company website. I guess my summary is that it probably isn't notable. Personally I don't count cut and paste press releases as being 'coverage', but then I am not the only lazy person in this world. The NYT article is written to be directly about the IT economy on Long Island, and uses Fatwire as a supporting example. It is not directly about the company as such, possibly this is hairsplitting on my part. Walworth (talk) 13:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

: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.