Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UShareSoft

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. Cirt (talk) 04:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UShareSoft[edit]

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

Promotional article for a small company with no particular relevance. Google hits are boosted by the automatic relay of an announcement by Sun Microsystems when the company was created. Also noteworthy : the author places promotional links in other articles (see "what links here") and deleted the firt AfD. Oyp (talk) 11:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Catherinenuel seems to be a WP:SPA (contrib log: [1]), possibly an employee or SEO professional. All edits are to the UShareSoft article or add links to it. The article is clearly WP:SPAM. Smocking (talk) 13:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed an SPA, and the account name matches the name of the company's "marketing coordinator". By the way, they did the same thing on fr: (same account, SPA as well), where the article is being deleted too. Oyp (talk) 14:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your thoughts this is a promotional article. It remains completely factual on what the company is, where it is located and which products they are working on. Whether the company is small or large is not an issue, nothing is stipulated in the wikipedia guidelines regarding this matter.

There are thousands of such articles on companies (large and small) in their industry sector.

The promotional links elsewhere you are mentioning seems to be core to their business activity...so someone who is interested in Software Appliances can also read on relevant companies that are in that business vertical. Again, many other companies do the same here.

From their website, in terms of relevance, they seems to have large industry actors partnering with them.

Topy w (talk) 14:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC) topy_w[reply]

Second SPA: your only contributions (2 of them so far) are on this page. Oyp (talk) 14:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, It seems that wikipedia is being used to "advertise" companies in general, even though the articles have been written in an informative way. Should the following articles also be marked for deletion :

rPath bitnami VMware

for example ?

If not, then I do not understand the difference. Kind Regards Jgweir (talk) 14:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC) jgweir[reply]

One more SPA (sockpuppets ?). Oyp (talk) 14:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppets reported, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Catherinenuel Smocking (talk) 15:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, I have just joined wikipedia, please don't start accusing everyone as an SPA because this is my first article. People write articles when they are knowledgeable in a certain area - I am considered an expert in Virtualization and Cloud Computing and hence why I am contributing to this article.

Again, I do not understand why there are rules for some articles and not for others. I would like to have a debate on whether the information provided in this article is factual and not purely for publicity. I see thousands (yes thousands) of such articles on companies - usually started by a person within the company. I can name hundreds of such articles. I would like to understand how we could shape the article to be purely factual. Which parts of the article you think should removed. If you believe the entire article should be removed then please start doing the same for other companies...as this is scandalous.

In my previous post I mentioned some other companies that have similar articles - should these be marked for deletion too...or can you please highlight where I am not adhering to the guidelines.

UShareSoft has many neutral 3rd party people discussing and writing about the company -- including IDC; so to the question on the company's relevance...i find it insulting.

Kind Regards James

Jgweir (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC) jweir[reply]

The first thing to do is read the notability criteria for companies. In fact, it should be enough. Oyp (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The argument above, that other articles exist isn't a reason to keep an article. Smartse (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're an "expert in Virtualization and Cloud Computing", and also the CTO & Co-founder of the company in question. I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not the place to advertise your company. I wish you and your company well, but just know that this is an encyclopedia, not a place to get free publicity. -- Atama頭 23:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this link....

Here are some independent articles from some journalists. This is discussing one subject matter, the companies public launch of their two main products.

ZDNET from Dana Gardner Cloud Computing Journal (by Maureen OGara) She only has 23 million people that have read her blog. ITChannel Info Yahoo Finance Progilibre

Reading the article you provided states: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has 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."

The word significant is obviously important. This company was created in 2008 (so a Startup), so for sure you could argue that their exposure is not as significant as some other companies. My question is where do you draw the line ?

From their own press release (see here: Press Release of Public Launch) they have had some impressive quotes from current customers including France Telecom and Talend; not to mention IDC.

At this moment in time I am not sure. We could delete the article, only to realize they are relevant in 3 months time.

Thoughts ???

Jgweir (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC) jgweir[reply]

My vote is to delete the article (for the time being). Regards James

Jgweir (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC) jgweir[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations may also be helpful in writing about an organization. Smocking (talk) 01:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence to demonstrate that this company meets the requirements of WP:CORP regarding notability. A google new search doesn't find anything. Jgweir, "We could delete the article, only to realize they are relevant in 3 months time." please see WP:CRYSTAL if the company becomes notable then we can have the article, until then, we should not. Smartse (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While I appreciate the effort that James has gone through to find sources, blogs and press releases are not considered reliable sources. The ZDnet blog is the only one that I would give any real weight to, but even that coverage is close to trivial. I just don't believe that the article subject meets our standards. -- Atama頭 23:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with Atama, including role of socks and/or COI here. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with WP:SNOW per nom. -- samj _in ^out 03:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN per non and per our requirements for significant coverage in notable sources. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:50, 25 February 2010 (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.