Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CyLEDGE

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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CyLEDGE

non-notable company, fails WP:CORP. Ghits: [1]. Appears part of a marketing campaign [2]. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 14:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. JonHarder 14:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:CORP -- Alias Flood 20:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Agree after reviewing this from the wikiproject. This appears to be part of a marketing campaign to forward this company, which is more of a start up than anything, and their product is a mess of neoligisms for corporate buzz words. Wikipedia is not a vechicle for advertising. Kevin_b_er 07:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The cyLEDGE article has now been edited to take into account justified criticisms by several users. Please accept our apologies for what may have seemed excessive or unclear marketing jargon (the jargon which, for better or worse, we are most familar with...), and have done our best to follow the Wiki Style manual. Though cyLEDGE contains the company site as an external link, it is not so much a marketing campaign than it is an attempt to communicate what we are doing and get reactions from other people working or interested in the field. Since there is a natural affinity to cyLEDGE's activities and open-platforms such as Wikipedia, it is important for us to be present there - an additional paragraph has been added to make as clear as possible what the issues at stake are, and which we are trying to come to terms with. --Knusper 15:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment "attempt(ing) to commnunicate what we are doing" still appears to be marketing and falls foul of WP:NOT, especially this section. Even with the rewrite, the article continues to fail WP:CORP -- Alias Flood 17:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Indeed, still marketing. The citations are to the descriptions of what the company may be practicing, not citations against the company itself. The article still lacks verifiability to anything the company claims of doing. Kevin_b_er 22:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom marketing spam. Davidpdx 03:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, also as non-encyclopedic; article discusses interesting concepts but not the company. Discussion of said company would likely be non-notable. (With apologies to the folks at cyledge, who seem nice enough, this isn't the proper forum for what you are intending to achieve. Unless you were intending to write an encyclopedia article, of course. Would World Book be interested?) Eaglizard 07:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; as the nomination points out, it fails WP:CORP. -- Mikeblas 17:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, also fails WP:SPAM's how not to be a spammer. (especially the note "Don't make a new article for your own product or Web site") Pascal.Tesson 17:11, 19 July 2006 (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.