Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kofax

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 per discussion as meeting notability guidelines. Shell ^babelfish 22:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kofax

This is spam. Language is written to present products as superior, to incite people to buy, and includes a link to the homepage of this company. I recommend deletion of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulysseshadd (talk • contribs) User's only contribution

• A poorly written article doesn't constitute deletion. It has to meet several conditions for inclusion, namely WP:CORP and WP:V. For the moment, I am neutral --Wafulz 17:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• It's non-neutral because 209.36.164.6 (talk · contribs) copied the copyrighted advertising blurb from the company's own web site ("Copyright © 1992-2006 Kofax Image Products. All rights reserved.") into the article and removed the neutrality from the existing text. I've reverted to the most recent non-infringing version. Uncle G 18:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• You're right, it does have to meet WP:CORP, except it doesnt - delete it. Amists 18:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I did a quick google search, which returned 1.63 million results. All of these on the first few pages pertain to this particular company. After this, I ran a google news search, which returned 9 results, but google news only keeps news from the last few months. As a result of these two searches, I'd say this company is notable. Srose (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious keep, one of the great pitchers in baseball history oh, er, never mind. Keep per Srose. NawlinWiki 19:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• I found the existence of the page useful. I was looking for neutral info on the company products/history. Would have been nicer if it had been a trifle meatier....

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.