Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intellicus

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. Cirt (talk) 06:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intellicus

This nearly-5KB article does very little to establish notability of the company it's devoted to (and I mean "devoted" in the biblical sense - this article is borderline G11), mentioning (without any citations to back this assertation up) that "NASSCOM and Red Herring have recognized Intellicus as an innovative and fast emerging technology company" - something which could be anything from a write-up on the company to mere inclusion in a list of recently-emerging companies in the tech sector. I suspect that the article may well be a copyvio of an off-line publicity guide, but cannot prove this mere gut feeling of mine. The main contributor to this article (INTLCS (talk · contribs)) is a pretty obvious conflict-of-interest. Google returns slightly more than 1,500 results, the first fifty of which seem to be either the company's own press releases, or mirrors of Wikipedia. 1,500 results may sound like a lot, but a search for the phrase "duck chat" - as a phrase, mind you - returns nearly the same amount of results. At least I have some leads if I ever want some one-on-one with a dandy waterfowl. Returning back to the article at hand - keep in mind that those open-press releases and Wiki-mirrors are the fifty best matches. The Goggle algorithm may not be flawless, but somehow I doubt there's a great source buried twenty pages deep. If there is, I'm sure the AfD process will weed it out. As this stands, at best, this is a company hanging out at the very fringe of notability whose article would need a complete, from-the-ground-up rewrite before it is suitable for the project. Badger Drink (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete WP:SPAM. Jeremiah (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep there is a factual basis in the article tat describes the company & its products, so it is not G11, but the importance need to be shown by some information about notability of the products, or market share or revenue. DGG (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Using the phrase business intelligence solutions ought to be a dead giveaway. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 23:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) — Spam. Reads like some sort of a corporate overview that ends with a bulleted PowerPoint presentation of its features. (You know, those meetings.) It needs an overhaul just to get rid of the spammish tone alone. MuZemike (talk) 03:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All that is neccesary is to run the bot for taking out the word "solutions" and replace by something random. Fixes a lot of spam. The standard for G11 is incapable of being improved. DGG (talk) 04:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This content doesn't belong here. --Lockley (talk) 23:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a G11, for the reasons that DGG has gone into above, but still a non-notable company. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:57, 31 October 2008 (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.