Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Netconcepts

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. Grandmasterka 07:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Netconcepts

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

I believe this constitutes spam. SERSeanCrane 04:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep - not spam. I wrote this on my talk page which is related to this: I'm 16-years-old and a full-time high school student. In my spare time, I write for Wikinews, Wikipedia, and recently, Practical eCommerce. I draw inspiration for what I write about from things I read and watch, people I meet, and generally things that interest me (including e-commerce and search engines). I follow some local (Christchurch) companies including Netconcepts. Sometimes the things I write about get me noticed (I got to know a couple people at Netconcepts because of some of the writing I've done), which is cool when it happens but I'm not here just to network. Don't worry, I always keep a NPOV when I write. :-) Even when it gets me in trouble (like it did here Talk:SLI_Systems). Nzgabriel 04:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
You should edit for microsoft... =) SERSeanCrane 04:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Okay, how about failing WP:WEB Citicat 05:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Not big enough for WP:CORP--155.144.251.120 05:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

(Talk/Contrib) 13:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment I meant that there is nothing that passes WP:CORP, just small trivial media mentions.--155.144.251.120 20:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete For me, this is right on the border of WP:CORP. The New Zealand Herald articles are non-trivial, but one is more about the owner than the company. More importantly, there really isn't an assertion of notability. I don't see what makes this company any more notable than your average consulting firm. I feel bad deleting something this well sourced, but it just doesn't seem encyclopedic. --Djrobgordon 05:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article is adequately referenced, and I think the article, taken together with the references, demonstrates notability. --Eastmain 05:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- gadfium 07:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, well referenced and NPOV goes a long way towards making an article on a small company worth having.-gadfium 08:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This could be a model article. And I learnt something from reading it. --Limegreen 08:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Limegreen This appears to be well written and referenced article. Jules1975 11:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. It could use a lot of work though...--StormCommander 11:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well-written and dilligently referenced; big enough company to have Verizon as a client. Sounds totally notable to me. - Mgm|(talk) 12:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The subject has multiple, non-trivial appearances in the press. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 13:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, nontrivial sourcing, well referenced. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems reasonably objective and well referenced. And if they oppose using Javascript and Flash animations as site navigation features, they are on the side of God and His angels. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Just wanted to say a friendly hello. I'm the president of Netconcepts. Anything I can do to help? I listed a few articles on Talk:Netconcepts that hopefully will help establish notability. I agree that the article needs work. Stephanspencer 00:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Coming to this article as a new pair of eyes, my immediate reaction is deep unease. As it stands the article looks dangerously like spam/advertising. I'm deeply perturbed by the NZ Herald articles, which have all the hallmarks of lazy journalists cribbing from corporate press releases, and the other articles are slightly too hagiographic of the company's founder to make me feel they're unbiased. This is one of those "snowball/heck" cases: I can see the way this debate's going, but my every instinct would be to delete for lack of real ( independent, non-press release ) sources. It doesn't seem to me that this article really passes WP:CORP, on the grounds that we don't have enough truly independent sources. At the very least, I'd like to suggest a good Clean up. I have a hunch we're being used here, but I can't put my finger on why. WMMartin 13:48, 22 February 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.