Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/10ZiG


 * 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. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 23:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

10ZiG Technology Ltd

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article is about an interesting but apparently non-notable company. While there are hits in some news archive databases for the company's current and former names, they all appear to be reprints of various press releases from the company or its various partner companies. I cannot find any reliable source that mentions the company more than simply in passing, certainly nothing that indicates "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Three citations were recently added to the article: two are press releases, which are not reliable secondary sources for establishing notability, while the third is a listing in a BusinessWeek directory of businesses from CapitalIQ (which compiles databases of thousands of companies, many of them almost certainly not notable, for sale and market research). None of the three of these sources, nor any others that I can find, establish notability per our guidelines. jæs (talk) 00:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep&mdash;The VendorRate report does appear to be a legitimately notable publication, so that may also be considered an independent secondary source. The fact that they rated 10ZiG Technology as one of the "top rated vendors for overall customer satisfaction in 2009" stakes a claim for notability.&mdash;RJH (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The VendorRate source isn't a "report," it's a press release,undefined which means it is not a reliable source. jæs (talk)  20:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How about page 5 of this(PDF)?&mdash;RJH (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Still a primary source from a non-notable, not reliable "publication." jæs (talk)  23:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Comment. I've spent a fair bit of time reviewing the contributions of User:Jcalamity, the editor who created this article.  Aside from a few "good hand" early edits, almost all of their edits since have been to insert various spam or refspam into articles.  It looks like 10ZiG has been their only article creation, however.  Based on the significant breadth of the subject matter for their spamming, I strongly suspect some sort of paid editing or other "public relations" scenario.  jæs (talk)  23:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. As the nomination asserts, there is very little in the way of WP:RS providing actual information/useful commentary about the subject. Most of what is provided for references is actually press releases, company profiles, and other awards/accolades of dubious importance. Appears to be thinly-veiled jargon-laced WP:SPAM. -- Kinu <sup style="color:red;">t /<sub style="color:red;">c  23:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Even if marginally notable I don't think we should be keeping articles where apparent COI throws the article's neutrality in doubt. If unconflicted editors get interested in the topic sometime later, they can write a new article. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing more than a spam advert. Qworty (talk) 07:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong delete - fails WP:CORP as sources do not demonstrate notability and a heavy dose of "spam masquerading as an article". ukexpat (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per Ukexpat and Jaes. Racepacket (talk) 20:58, 27 January 2011 (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.