Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Survey & Ballot Systems

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. kur ykh 00:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Survey & Ballot Systems[edit]

This appears to be an article written like a marketing pitch and not notable. It appears to be "sourced" nearly entirely by self published sources and the company's website. The article has multiple issues and no one is improving the article. It appears sock puppetry has been used to delete maintenance templates as well. Further there is a potential for conflict of interest with the author and the article is an orphan. Electiontechnology (talk) 09:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: It appears maybe there is a sock puppet account who is removing the Afd tag. Can anything be done about this? Electiontechnology (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: And now an anon user is doing the same. Electiontechnology (talk) 19:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is clearly not notable by WP standards. Cbackert (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability Alberon (talk) 11:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the article is self-serving the company itself seems to be big enough to be notable, even just from the picture of its building. Why is every little website and "internet meme" considered worth an article and not a company which is a major employer and a participant in public events? Steve Dufour (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is the first time I've seen a picture of a company HQ being quoted as a notability-granting source. The article itself says that this company has 40 employees - is that really "a major employer" and "big enough to be notable" in the absence of evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources? The sources in the article don't look adequate for notability, and all Google News hits (which I would expect to see for any notable organisation in this one's era, location and field) seem to be press releases and passing mentions. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There have been significant changes to the article in order to remove any hint of market, it is strictly informational. Also, there have been added sources so the information is no longer self-published. In terms of notability, the company is known within the field and represents an area of business underrepresented in Wikipedia. Also, I agree with Steve Dufour, what makes a small website or internet meme more notable than a company that supports a community? Benjamin Dominic (talk) 22:43, 16 January 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.