Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digital Insight
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep. Tone 00:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Digital Insight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Digital Insight products. References given are to self links and press releases that do not count as reliable sources and do not confer notability. Others seem to be merely trivial coverage or mentions.
I am also nominating the following Advertisements masquerading as articles:
- FinanceWorks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Small Business FinanceWorks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 20:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I have added some references that I think establish notability for the company and its software. One of the more significant lines in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion is "please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape." -- Eastmain (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the changes made by Eastmain. I would rather have an article in bad shape that hasn't been improved in years to be deleted if no one plans on ever making any improvements. I don't buy into the no deadline mantra, not one bit. Our reputation here is bad enough as it is. That said, THANK YOU EASTMAIN for making these improvements. JBsupreme (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2010 (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.