Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Officeautopilot

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. Michig (talk) 14:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Officeautopilot[edit]

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

Marginal computer software company Article created by subsequently-banned sock-pupeteer active in creating articles on marginally notable technological companies of this nature. DGG ( talk ) 09:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. Most refs are in very obscure web publications. Fails WP:COMPANY. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The most solid references here are in sector reviews, for example the Capterra rating as 15 of 20, the Raab 2011 listing as a tool for micro-businesses (but not among leading vendors in the B2B 2012 report), and a positive review in Insurance Marketing Online. All in all, these seem to fall short of WP:CORPDEPTH/WP:NSOFT. AllyD (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Using the Capterra report for comparision: #1 Eloqua, #5 Unica (IBM), # Silverpop (SPA-created), #9 Pardot (SPA-created), #10 Act-On (created by User:Corporate Minion), #13 Neolane (SPA-created). It's a contest! And we have not been spared articles on companies ranking below Officeautopilot: LeadLife, eTrigue, Net-results (SPA-created), LeadFormix (SPA-created), LoopFuse (SPA-created). Tijfo098 (talk) 08:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A decision based less on research of the topic and more on the nominators evaluation. If DGG says delete it has gotta be bad! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We will see more and more of this since the business community is seeing that WP is not going away and id damn popular. It is too good an opportunity to miss for the marketing industry. We are in dire need an overhaul of WP policies, guidelines and systems. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is mostly off-topic here, but what we need are objective guidelines for companies similar to those from the German Wikipedia. (We kinda have that for WP:PROFs.) No more local business journal + obscure trade magazine news coverage = GNG pass to SPAM. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree wholeheartedly. Lets get the ball rolling. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 22 October 2012 (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.