Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cincopa

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. Despite some invalid and emotion-based arguments ("should be deleted just out of spite", "their disrespect for Wikipedia " etc.) in favor of deletion, there are also valid, policy-based arguments in favor of deletion and no such arguments in favor of keeping the article, since notability claims like "many google hits" and "getting popular" are only valid if they can be verified using reliable, third-party sources. Oren99 does provide some sources to that effect but they are all blog sources and as such cannot be used to establish notability. Regards So Why 10:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cincopa[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Non-notable per WP:COMPANY, unreferenced, borderline WP:SPAM, clear WP:Conflict of interest by creator, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. MuffledThud (talk) 23:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 23:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 23:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, blatant spam and buzzword bingo: a Cloud Computing, Platform as a Service (PaaS) company, allowing developers to build rich multimedia applications that are hosted on their servers and provided as a service (Software as a service SaaS). Established in 2007... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A link to google search results is not a valid reference. The actual number of sites is only a fraction of what is claimed. I agree that this is spam from a non-notable company. – jaksmata 18:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A link to google search is a valid reference as it shows the wide use of the system. google doesn't lie and so wordpress with 90,00 downloads. there are many articles about the system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oren99 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC) — Oren99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please see WP:GOOGLEHITS. MuffledThud (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Cincopa is a tool for site builders so searching the term "powered by cincopa" does give somekind of idea about the amount of users using it. Also here are some reviews talking about the importance of this product to the wordpress bloggers community 1 2 3 4 5 6. comment added by Oren99 —Preceding undated comment added 23:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC). — Oren99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep the plugin of cincopa is one of the best and most downloaded on in wordpress, and it's a big player in the wordpress blog world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shohamgi (talk • contribs) 20:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC) — Shohamgi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong Keep the platform is getting extremely popular .Reference is important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mossinson (talk • contribs) 21:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC) — Mossinson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Speedy delete the presence of all these SPA who suddenly show up make it obvious this is spam. This should be deleted just out of spite. Miami33139 (talk) 23:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It could be the best and the most downloaded on Wordpress, but that does not make it notable let alone warrant an entry in an encyclopedia. "A big player in the wordpress blog world" yet I fail to find significant, independant notable coverage. The discussions created by the WP:SPA accounts just shows their disrespect for Wikipedia as they blatantly try to use their fan/user base to justify keeping this article. I vote delete. LoudHowie (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google hits as a reference is rather frightening. Additionally, all of these single purpose accounts make this rather curious. It was also clearly created in a conflict of interest, as the creator's edit summary is "new page for my company, cincopa". These concerns aside, the article is written from a rather non-neutral POV, and it doesn't seem to pass WP:ORG. I wouldn't totally be against doing something along the lines of information in related topics, but that would be likely prone to linkspam or other abuses. Popularity is not a substitute for notability, and I don't think significant, reliable, third-parties have made enough reference to it to confer notability. Lots of issues. Cocytus [»talk«] 23:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete and salt This article will likely be recreated via a paid editing job from elance dot com with the job entry consisting of I"ve submitted an article about my company to Wikipedia and got many rejects. I'm looking for someone with a track record in wiki (not SPA) to review and fix (non-neutral POV, WP:ORG) the issues and fight an "Articles for deletion" status. the article is not long and most writing is already done. If you understand what I'm asking and believe that you can write compelling cross arguments to the deletion status do reply and we can discuss the article/company name. Enough said. Them From Space 20:39, 29 November 2009 (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.