Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ILinc

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. Tim Song (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ILinc

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company, article by single-purpose user. While searching for coverage I have found only press releases and no significant third-party coverage in reliable sources. Haakon (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The first item I see when I do a Google News archive search is [1] this bylined article in the Phoenix Business Journal: "South Carolina taps iLinc for Web-conferencing services". This is another bylined article from a reliable source. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Reprinted a news release remains a primary source; it is just reportage, no matter how reliable the source. Eastmain, above, mentions two sources, which are both news releases by the company. --Bejnar (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local trade paper coverage generally does not confer notability on a business, especially if it is a routine announcement of a job or contract awarded. Non-notable provider of business-to-business back office services. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Let's look at the sources. This is clearly an unreliable press-release regurgitation. This is not reliable either: it's a puff piece on the organisation that even goes so far as to do it the favour of giving a link to the company's website. Articles based on sources like this violate WP:RS, and a subject that is only covered by these unreliable sources fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia's reliability is only as good as the sources it relies on. That's why coverage in reliable sources is a critical part of our notability policies that should not be ignored by the wanton scattergun firing of sources into an article to try to demonstrate notability. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:18, 12 March 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.