Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EWise
Appearance
- 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. Nakon 00:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- EWise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Expired prod, deleted and now restored few months earlier as it has been contested. I am not sure if WP:REFUND has been followed as I was not linked to the place it was originally contested (@JamesBWatson:), but in any case given the article unchanged state I stand by my original rationale - in short, spam, or in detail: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement." Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Discussion on policies of undeletion
|
---|
|
- Delete The references in the article don't come within a million miles of suggesting notability. Two of the three references don't even mention EWise, and one of those two is an advertisement on the web site of a business which according to the article belongs to EWise; the third one merely gives such information about the company as the names of its executives and "How they describe themselves", together with what looks to me like a promotional video, though I am not at present able to listen to it. I have searched for better sources, and failed to find any. (Also, if the article is kept, it will need to be re-written, as its current version reads to me like promotion.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Keep somewhat on the buble here, but there's a bunch of articles.
- --Samuel J. Howard (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know what "on the buble" means, but I don't see any of those links as providing evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. One of them is a dead link, two are pages simply announcing that EWise has obtained some financing, and the the others are all pages that are not primarily about EWise, but just briefly mention EWise from once to a few times. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Fails wp:corp. LaMona (talk) 04:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Of the various references offered, only one - the one in the [Sydney Morning Herald - is an Independent Reliable Source with any significant coverage about the company itself. The others are routine announcements of funding, partnership deals, etc. This is not enough to meet WP:CORP.
- 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.