Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IntelliTXT (second 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. John254 16:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IntelliTXT

IntelliTXT (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article fails to establish notability Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 07:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The article fails to establish the subject's notability, per WP:CORP. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 07:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Extranet ^talk 07:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Needs more information added, but it's definitely significant. Many web users nowadays have come across this whether they know of it or not, it's the software that causes small relevant popups around the cursor when you mouse over an underlined word on many webpages. For example all the ones on this page [1]. Ben W Bell talk 09:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - zillions of ghits including some very notable users. andy 10:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable but annoying. I recommend web users to block out this and similar annoying advertising methods... but that doesn't make them non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It appears on a ton of websites, is mentioned in several publications, lots of gogle hits, etc. Lurker 13:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment if it's so notable, would somebody please add information and references to the article to establish that notability? Actions speak louder than words. Thank you! Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 13:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. Obvious famous company. Probably the article should be improved (and referenced). Cate | _Talk 13:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Reading again the article, the first nomination and the logs, it seems that the article is really NPOV (and probably spam). But the company is notable, so I think a rewrite is needed. Cate | _Talk 14:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• I don't understand how it can be seen as spam, as a good part of the article describes how annoying they are, how to block them, and links to competitors. I doubt anybody at the company would have written this in its current form. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• The criticism is unsourced, original research. Wikipedia isn't a how-to manual. If you want to keep this article, please fix it! If nobody is interested in fixing it, then it should be deleted. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 15:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Definitely a notable company; I'm surprised the article isn't in better shape. But I've added three references in an effort to establish notability. Propaniac 16:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I added the following to the article, using a press release as a reference:

I think the company therefore meets WP:CORP and should be kept. -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

A. That's a bad reference. B. Ubiquity of the product isn't a criteria under WP:CORP. We need to find references from reliable published sources. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 17:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree it is a crappy (primary) reference, but that's the one I found in the short time I could spend on Wikipedia at that moment. I tend to think that a crappy reference is better than no reference at all. I am not an original contributor of the article, I preferred stating here I had added this. -- lucasbfr ^talk 18:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep, these ads are all over the web and are quite notable. See what Lucasbfr said. Tim.bounceback^{(talk | contribs | ubxen)} 19:23, 9 May 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.