Talk:Blue Prism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Spam

This is an objective article written about a notable company. It is most certainly not blatant advertising and I can only assume that the user who claimed this did not read the page. CiaranG 11:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The article may be objective, but there is nothing in it that asserts its notability. Wikipedia is not a directory of businesses. - Tiswas^(t/c) 11:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

In which case, it is not a candidate for speedy deletion, and the issue you have with asserting notability can be resoloved either before or during an AfD. Will you remove the tag, or may I? CiaranG 11:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, I would add that the references assert notability. I am of the opinion that the article already meets the guidelines in Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations), but am happy to cite further references if necessary. CiaranG 12:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

{{db-spam}} removed. I would expect actual text to satisfy notability (the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself) - currently, the references only suggest mentions in passing, with no substantial articles. - Tiswas^(t/c) 12:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prod/notability concerns

I've left the prod tag in place as the new sources seem to have the same concern-they're simply trivial mentions of the company, mainly in articles which are actually about other companies or concepts. "Mentions in passing" such as this are trivial mentions, and no number of them adds up to a reliable source. To establish notability per criterion 1 of the corporate and company notability guidelines, they must have been written about by someone unaffiliated with the company-not simply have had their name dropped a few places. Seraphimblade 16:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the articles currently listed as references 4, 6 and 7 fully satisfy those requirements, though I do agree with your assessment of the others, which are there not satisfy verifiability not notability. CiaranG 16:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)