Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CustomerVision

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 of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CustomerVision

This article was speedied thrice as spam, but these speedies weren't really valid, and were reversed by WP:DRV. Since two people actually deleted it, it seems reasonable to give consideration to the deletion option here. The del review debate is here. I do not find a great many Ghits nor anything on Google News, but apparently they serve some clients you've probably heard of; whether they import notability from that or not is for AfD. -Splash^talk 03:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Searching, I find things that look independent, being located on web sites that have no immediate connection with the company, but that all have first-person statements ("We often start out helping a customer ...", "Our Solutions enable content creation ...", "We believe ...") somewhere. I cannot find any published works about this company that are from sources other than the company itself. There are no independently sourced books, consumer reports, "in depth" magazine articles, news coverage, or journal articles. The WP:CORP criteria are not satisfied. There is no way to write more than a business directory article here. Wikipedia is not a business directory. Delete. Uncle G 03:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Uncle G. android79 03:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Uncle G. Xoloz 04:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• 'Delete was redirect --Gbleem 18:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC) On the talk page I suggested redirect to wiki software. Kinda like redirecting kleenex to tissue.--Gbleem 04:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • On the contrary, kleenex doesn't redirect anywhere. (It's also a product, not a company as the subject of this article is.) This is because the trademark satisfies the WP:CORP criterion for having become genericized. Uncle G 04:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I didn't actually look up kleenex obviously. I was just thinking someone hearing about CustomerVision might want to see wikisoftware. Why not put in a redirect? --Gbleem 05:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Putting in redirects for every company in existence would make Wikipedia into a business directory by the back door. Uncle G 12:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 17:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC) Oops I voted more than once. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 04:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Keep assuming tht it is a notable company, it could stand to be written in English (not marketing speak). DeathThoreau 18:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Uncle G. Stifle 10:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Entry apears to be nothing more than advertising a product. Ambix 15:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• I have updated my original entry for CustomerVision. Please review and consider the hopefully much improved version. I am trying to quickly learn how to craft an article that meets the community standards and I would appreciate a chance to get this right. I have tried to use other entries in the same "List of wiki software products" as a guide. Also CustomerVision is both the company name and the name of the software and I've tried to focus the article on the nature of the software. bkeairns
• Delete, Non-notable and advertisement. Deletion Review participants, please see my comment here, thank you. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 04:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

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.