Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Optimal IdM

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Optimal IdM

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

Article contains no evidence that this company satisfies the conditions of WP:ORG - all the refs in the article that mention the company are from its own website. I've also been unable to find any significant third party mentions of it via web search, for instance Highbeam Research has 10 hits,[1] all of which appear to originate in press releases. —SMALL JIM 11:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator says still delete, despite the addition of four new references by the single-purpose editor LarryAucoin (one of the company's founders). Of these new refs, one is a press release and the others are about its software – a brief note of an award, a mention in MS TechNet, and a short article which compares it to the competition. We still have no independent writeups about the company to show that WP:CORPDEPTH is satisfied, and I still can't find anything after checking the top 100 ghits. —SMALL JIM 12:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 14:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input, can you please provide us with a few sample companies out there for us to use as a reference? Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.99.144.120 (talk) 14:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Reads clearly as PR from the company. COI as it appears to be the company editing the the article themselves. Non-notabe, pure PR. Meets G11/A7 All most all references are from the companies own website, and appears some sections may violate G12 coming directly from the companies website. Caffeyw (talk) 03:06, 23 August 2013 (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.