Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gelco
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 but rewrite. I tried my hand at reworking the lead paragraph. But the article will need cleanup. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-20 09:50Z
[edit] Gelco
non-encyclopedic advert; PR puff piece; was speedied once previously Delete --Mhking 21:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- It was created by User:Voyageurit; and a search found web sites http://www.voyageurit.net/_dev/gelco/new-hp/feed.xml http://www.voyageurit.com/clients.html http://www.voyageurit.com/portfolio.html that advertise Gelco. Anthony Appleyard 21:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete - If the company is legit, then some legit editor ought to create a new article. This one reeks of the PR office puff piece factory. --Orange Mike 02:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please keep and suggest areas for improvement - The article was originally written from purely a historical viewpoint and only after a suggestion from a Wiki editor was the business services section even added to the article. I recently edited the document to highlight the business process aspect and remove any suggestion of it being PR. The company is old with over 100 years in the business process management industry which already has a significent presence on Wiki. I welcome any other suggestions to improve article. --Voyageurit 03:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- The "history" reads like a press release or a fluff piece for a local paper, with lots of "colorful" but irrelevant detail. Strip the whole thing of "interesting and colorful" nonsense and praise of the company, its founder, its products, etc. (Letters of credit, for instance, date well back to the Middle Ages, and were no innovation.) Give us hard, cold facts, with impartial sources of impartial, objective facts about the company and what it does or did. --Orange Mike 04:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Orangemike thanks for the constructive comments, I appreciate the blunt approach. I reorganized the article with your suggestions to make it more objective, shorter and easier to read. I agree Gelco certainly did not invent letters of credit although they did create a business around credit as a convienence getting the cooperation of hotel chains. They also enhanced their business by being early adopters of technology advances that improve their services such as SAAS over client server. Like it or not (I don't) execution is often more important to business success than innovation (see Bill Gates)- thanks again and any more suggestions are welcome - --Voyageurit 16:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- The "history" reads like a press release or a fluff piece for a local paper, with lots of "colorful" but irrelevant detail. Strip the whole thing of "interesting and colorful" nonsense and praise of the company, its founder, its products, etc. (Letters of credit, for instance, date well back to the Middle Ages, and were no innovation.) Give us hard, cold facts, with impartial sources of impartial, objective facts about the company and what it does or did. --Orange Mike 04:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep but rewrite. The history is confusing: was their Credit Letter a Letter of Credit of a prototype of a credit card? The relation of the Products to the two sub companies is unclear. DGG 00:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep At first I thought this was Geico...the company has been around for a hundred years, and there are three references. That's good enough not to delete it. YechielMan 00:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep but rewrite Could easily be a good article, but needs to be rewritten so it doesn't seem like so much of an advertisement. Jmlk17 03:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep — Looks notable enough and is referenced. It does need a rewrite though, especially the introduction (as it reads like an advertisement). --RazorICE 05:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep but take out the bias the_undertow talk 09:00, 20 April 2007 (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.
