Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vendormate (2nd nomination)

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 Keep (NAC) RMHED (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vendormate[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:COMPANY, no significant coverage online from reliable sources per WP:RS. MuffledThud (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. But the article includes references. Apart from the company press release, the rest seem to be from reliable sources. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There were a few secondary sources from the original editor, and now there are more. The article is generally neutral in tone and content. What did the old, deleted version say? 72.66.75.215 (talk) 22:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)— 72.66.75.215 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Comment note blatant WP:Conflict of interest by creator: this time it was created by User:VendorCredentialing, and last time it was created by the company's marketing director. MuffledThud (talk) 08:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Primarily geared toward the healthcare market, Vendormate is retained by other organizations with the need to keep track of and screen their suppliers, vendors, and contractors in a centralized database... It strikes me as very unlikely that a business of this nature could ever achieve general notability outside its niche, and that reads like advertising to me. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It passed my test - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Brandon (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why this prejudice against ordinary businesses? This one is the topic of at least one news story and mentioned in others. If it was a band, comic book, video game, etc. there would be no question of deleting.Borock (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability in its niche is sufficient, if the niche is more than trivial. The professional healthcare purchasing market is not trivial. The company seems to have an important market share. I do have to point out that we want notable businesses, not "ordinary" ones--that was an unfortunate choice of words. DGG ( talk ) 01:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep - small segment notability is still notable - Smerdis is on a wrong track on this one. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:35, 25 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.