Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wall Street Systems

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 Gnangarra 15:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wall Street Systems

Wall Street Systems (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Nom - Non-notable business; self-sourced; self promoted. Rklawton 15:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. There seems to be a number of independant reliable sources giving significant coverage out there. [1] [2] [3] [4]. —gorgan_almighty 10:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: press releases are not equivalent to significant coverage. Any business with a PR department issues press releases, and trade publications tend to publish them. They do help establish the idea that the business exists, but that's not sufficient for notability. Rklawton 14:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, the references I provided links to, above, are independent news stories. What makes you think they're press releases? —gorgan_almighty 15:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• That's how it works. Firm X aquires firm Y or releases a new product Z. They write up a press release and send it to the trade rags. The trades then create a news item out of the press release and publishes them as "news." However, the only research that goes into the stories comes from the press release itself. These sorts of items are routine and serve as no indication of notability. Rklawton 14:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. For future reference, how can you tell the difference between that and a real news story? —gorgan_almighty 13:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• The article does read like an advert and so should be rewritten. However, this company is one of the leaders in its field (accounting and treasury software) and so the article should be kept. Somearemoreequal 15:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 11:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Must have missed this. The article contains a product list. The cited references seem to be mostly to directories of various kinds. A business like this is unlikely to be of general interest to people outside financial fields. I don't believe the ones given are enough to satisfy WP:CORP.

  Even if it's a notable business, the current text needs to be entirely replaced. It says they're a financial software firm that specializes in providing treasury and transaction processing solutions. . . Are they a software business, or a chemical firm? Describing products as "solutions" is inherently POV, and a strong suggestion of spam. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:30, 2 October 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.