Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diversified Technology, Inc.
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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Diversified Technology, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Obvious and clear spam from the title down from editor with a conflict of interest. Originally uploaded as a copyvio, cut-and-paste from their website. No assertion of notability at all, just a few links added. Verifiability does not equal notability and does not equal grounds for free advertising in a not-for-profit encyclopedia. REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 18:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Please define how it is spam. Also, please tell me how it is a conflict of interest. Finally, please state how the items listed in the 2nd paragraph do not assert any notion of notability.Dbmays 18:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is a clear attempt at advertising, not an attempt at an encyclopedia article. GRBerry 18:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Valid stub, still needs some work. Meets our standards and actually doesn't read like spam. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Meets our standards how? You've rewritten the the opening paragraph but provided no proof that what is written is true. A direct citation to a third-party reliable source is needed but hasn't appeared. REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 18:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Met our standards before, too. You may want to check the external links. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Jeff, you know perfectly well that the article must establish notability, not just spammy links from it. Wikipedia is not a web directory. With no assertion of notability - and no proof of it having any other that what you've rewritten - plus the fact that it reads like an advertisement, then the free advertising this offers must end. REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 19:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article does assert notability, please see the second paragraph. Also, it doesn't read like an advertisement, unless you believe all stubs on companies do. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You can keep telling me to look at the paragraph, but that doesn't make notability magically appear. Also, please don't ascribe views to me I don't hold. REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 19:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You can disagree with the notability, but it's asserted in the text and justified per our notability guidelines in the external links. Meanhwile, I've ascribed nothing to you, I wouldn't do such a thing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I took out the only part of the 2nd paragraph that relied on a pay-to-view market study, which could be interpreted as advert content, as well as removing said market study from the references section, thereby removing the only 'spam' I could maybe see. Hopefully that helps. Dbmays 19:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You can disagree with the notability, but it's asserted in the text and justified per our notability guidelines in the external links. Meanhwile, I've ascribed nothing to you, I wouldn't do such a thing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You can keep telling me to look at the paragraph, but that doesn't make notability magically appear. Also, please don't ascribe views to me I don't hold. REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 19:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article does assert notability, please see the second paragraph. Also, it doesn't read like an advertisement, unless you believe all stubs on companies do. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Jeff, you know perfectly well that the article must establish notability, not just spammy links from it. Wikipedia is not a web directory. With no assertion of notability - and no proof of it having any other that what you've rewritten - plus the fact that it reads like an advertisement, then the free advertising this offers must end. REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 19:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Met our standards before, too. You may want to check the external links. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Meets our standards how? You've rewritten the the opening paragraph but provided no proof that what is written is true. A direct citation to a third-party reliable source is needed but hasn't appeared. REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 18:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Well established company (since 1971) with notability claimed in the article for being the first to introduce several new aspects of computing technology. And, while the number of Google hits is not a litmus test for notability on its own, a search of "Diversified Technology, Inc." - a pretty specific string - returns over 31K pages. Any issues related to wording that might make it appear to be an advertisment, although I fail to see how a Wikipedia entry will increase sales of a technology company to any great degree, can be dealt with by suggesting improvements on the talk page. ◄Zahakiel► 20:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - See article's entry on Deletion Review for editor-provided additional links. --MalcolmGin 23:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep might be too short, but that's a reason to expand it not delete it. Nothing to indicate spam, it's totally neutral. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If anything, there is too little information aboutthe company's products. Yes some articles are spam, but this one is a good example of what is not spam.DGG 01:40, 13 April 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.