Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1099 Pro


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 08:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

1099 Pro

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article does not establish anything close to notability. It was marked for speedy deletion twice times, and the primary author has removed each speedy delete tag. The company might be notable-- I hope that the author can bring in some documentation of that fact, but I'm leaning towards delete because of the repeated removal of the speedy delete tags. Avram (talk) 09:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: The link to an IRS press release adds some good info. If this company is really processing millions of tax filings, as the IRS says, then there must be something notable to say. I am concerned with the way in which the article's creator has reacted to the proposed deletion, but the important thing is ultimately content.Avram (talk) 10:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - subject of substantial third party published materials; as an example, consider this Los Angeles Times article. It's easy enough to find many others with Google News or whatever you favour.  Thusly passes WP:N - I see no reason to deviate from the usual notability standards here. Wily D  14:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - I see nothing but a Press Release through Google News. The article is written so much like an advertisement, it's difficult to get past that to see any notability. The IRS release shows that with a complete rewrite it could possibly merit inclusion, but not now.  --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Choose all dates rather than past month for the news story dates and reliable third party stories will appear. Wily D 16:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Ok...still, nothing notable is apparent. More press releases and some court cases Google News link. Also, I don't mean to go on a tangent, but whose responsibility is it to dig around and assert notability? Currently, there's certainly nothing jumping out, and if someone wants to scour the 'net AND update the article, go ahead.. but again, as of now, I don't see it meeting wp:n. I welcome comments/views on this, on my talk page or here. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete They may or may not do a lot of form processing. I don't care, it isn't notable without substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources. Incidentally, if that lead paragraph ("1099 Pro, Inc. develops information-reporting solutions and services for 1099, W-2 and 1042-S filers. 1099 Pro develops and markets a range of products that enables businesses or institution to effectively manage and comply with all 1099, W-2 and 1042-S filing requirements.") isn't written by the company, I'm the Queen of Spain (which I'm not). - Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - could not find reliable sources to establish notability.--Boffob (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable company. (Also no context - author provides a link to 1099 as though this defines the company's activiites!) &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  14:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Appears non-notable, and reads like advertising. I agree with Omarcheeseboro that it could merit inclusion if rewritten from a neutral viewpoint.The Fiddly Leprechaun (talk) 14:49, 5 November 2008 (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.