Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SaM Solutions

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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SaM Solutions[edit]

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

Notability not established. Though this software business article has a long list of references and links, non of them demonstrate notability (trivial mentions, obscure sources and PR reprints). The promotional tone of the article and the Awards section constitute WP:ADVERT issue. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have gone through the references and they do not establish notability. I have also removed some of the more blatantly promotional sections of the article. OSborn^arf_contribs. 15:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another IT outsourcing business advertising on Wikipedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Those refs that are specific to this company, rather than outsourcing generally, are a mixture of PR and info on their business park location: insufficient to establish WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Similarly I've read through the references provided, the company is not quite a non-entity but it isn't notable QU ^TalkQu 21:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please keep this article, I've made it same as another EPAM Systems, and there is no differences, also its a notable Development company in Belarus, that is why im sure that it has similar info in wikipedia as others outsourcing companies. Dont see problems, also it has also links to others posts, and also articles that confirms company identity. Tagyl ^{User talk:Tagyl} 21:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The policies linked above described why this is being considered for deletion. The crux of the issue is summarised by the opening paragraph of the policy. Has SaM Solutions ...been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it. The references found so far appear to be trivial or not independent of the company (e.g., promotio^{User talk:Tagyl}nal material)QU ^TalkQu 09:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the difference between this article and EPAM Systems, otherwise the only thing is wikipedia is tring to block a free information here, without any normal law. 2. Please advise ways of notability, your point unclear and suggestion is needed. Please provide.Tagyl ^{User talk:Tagyl} 16:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.200.32.164 (talk) [reply]

There is no possible suggestion for demonstrating notability of company which is evidently not notable. The EPAM Systems article you refer to as at least close to qualifying for Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion § G11 (Unambiguous advertising or promotion). I didn't investigate it yet, but it will probably go to AfD next. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a law anymore since this article has same structure and notability to EPAM Systems and Altoros, please keep this article with only ask correction, this is what other users are going to do in a meanwhile. Also want to add that notability is the statement that only you can reflect, if its not notable for you, it could be notable for others. Please be democratic in this questions, otherwise Free WikiEncyclopedia by your hands becoming one of the keys in controlling free information. Be advised that you are pushing on a free expression of ideas. And also if a page is not of interest to Wikipedia readers or you Personaly like an Editor it does not mean it is not notable for others users of Wikipedia want to note that Wikipedia - is Free Encyclopedia. Tagyl 16:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.200.32.164 (talk) [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.