Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Publitas

: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 delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

=[[Publitas]]=

:{{la|Publitas}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Publitas}})

No significant products have been created by this company, mostly a summary of mayor companies who use this product. Article is mostly about the product and not the company itself. Writer has written same article in Dutch Wiki. Dqfn13 (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

::No significant products have been created by this company? The e-Publisher is clearly listed as one of their products and is briefly described. It seems like you are contradicting yourself. First you state there are no significant products created (I assume because you think there is not enough information about it) and then you say the article is mostly about the product and not the company itself. There is information about the number of employees, date founded, founders, the industry it operates in, and the type of business. What more do you want? Last week someone created an article about Publitas with three paragraphs of text describing the company's main product (the e-Publisher) and it was deleted after four days. It is for that reason I decided to keep this article short and concise. Other Wikipedians such as Elizium23 have checked this page (who previously did not approve of the older version of the page that was deleted) and they did not tag this page for advertisement purposes. Perhaps it's just you who doesn't understand what this article is really about. Please remove the tag for deletion and have someone else review it before you decide to tag it again.Adsx27 (talk) 15:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I have reviewed it. What more do we want? We want references to show notability. There is absolutely no indication of any notability, other than a list of companies. Supplying to a notable company does not make you notable per se. I would presume that those companies also purchase loo rolls, paperclips, envelopes, tea bags, and swivel seats. Are the purveyors of those items made notable by their supply to these companies? I think not. What we really prefer is an article not written by someone from the company - see WP:COI our policy on conflict of interest. See WP:RS for an indication of the type of references you will have to supply, and WP:GNG for the general notability guidelines. These are the policies for the English language Wikipedia. I have edited on several different languages and have found the insistence on references here to be rather less in other languages. (I've gone to other Wikipedias to find references and been mostly unsuccessful.) I spend a lot of my Wikipedia time in New Accounts monitoring and here in AfD. If I'd seen this article first, I'd have put a speedy deletion tag on it, on the grounds of non-notability. If you can supply the references - and it is up to you under WP:BURDEN - do so. If not, it'll probably go from this language. What the Dutch speakers do over there is their own business. Peridon (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

:*Comment Dear Peridon, so far I have been unable to find any English sources to reference this article because the company is not that famous in English speaking countries. Furthermore, if referencing is so important, could you please explain to me why the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texterity is still on Wikipedia? What part in the text would you like to see with a reference? At no point do I quote anyone nor do I state any statistics: I have merely paraphrased/summarized what I know about the company and its product based on what I've read on the company's website(s). I could cite the company's own website(s), but I understand that that's not allowed either. If you could specifically show me which part you would like to see with a credible reference, I will do my best to find it, whether it is in English or in Dutch. Hope you can help. Asdx27 (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adsx27 (talk • contribs)

::PS "Perhaps it's just you who doesn't understand what this article is really about." I think I do really understand.... Peridon (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

:::I've put this article up for deletion here, and in the Dutch language, and for now it looks a lot like it'll be deleted there within at least two weeks. But there is at least two've said it is spam and should be deleted 'now!'. Dqfn13 (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment to the author of the article The presence or otherwise of another article has no bearing on the existence or otherwise of any article. I would suggest you read the policies I have pointed out to you, and that you try to comply with them instead of telling us that we don't know what we are talking about. You can give foreign language references - so long as they are reliable ones. English language ones are preferred as this is the English language Wikipedia, but there are amongst us those who can check foreign language refs for suitability. You may give an external link to the company's website, but you cannot use it to establish notability, and cannot use text from it without a copyright release. I would like references to show that the company and/or its product comply with the notability policy. As I said before, I can see no indication in the article why there should be an article. The other article you mentioned is far from perfect, but it does make an attempt at establishing notability. I must say that I am not completely convinced by it and may well tag it - as you are also free to do if you think it doesn't fit our policies. Peridon (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete as advertising. Carrite (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete -- notability not demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertising, and well, you know: invested in online publishing technologies. The company's stated mission from the outset is “to help businesses optimize reach and conversion on the Internet by providing the best digital editions for professional use.....” a fully cloud-based e-Publishing solution.... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete I removed that little mission statement gem above from the article. The article does not make a credible claim to notability. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 22:16, 19 January 2011 (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.