Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/24SevenOffice (2nd nomination)


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 07:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

24SevenOffice
Previous AfD: Articles for deletion/24SevenOffice

Company with revenues of around $1m and 30 employees - well below the levels in WP:CORP. Nominated for deletion here, three delets and one rewrite taken as consensus keep and rewrite. Article creator admits they are an employee (a bad idea!). It has been suggested that this user is currently engaged in linkspamming (see here), and is internally linked from far more articles than I'd expect for such a small firm (here's the list) but the jury is still out on that. Anyway, as far as I can tell the previous AfD was mainly delete, and the article is "advertorial" in tone, and the company itself is of highly questionable notability. It looks to me like vanispamcruftisement. Creator asks what is the difference between this and salesforce.com - the answer is that salesforce.com has a market capitalisation of over $4bn and is quoted on the NYSE (ticker CRM). Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom.--nixie 10:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. My vote is not objective though - I work for 24SevenOffice. The article is about the application not the company. 24SevenOffice is the most comprehensive web based application available and I belive that makes it notable enough for an article. The company is very well known in Norway (I can provide an extensive list with press coverage) but have also gained international recognition. The application won an award at CeBIT. In this article 24SevenOffice is mentioned together with NetSuite as a successfull ASP/SaaS provider - this means that 24SevenOffice meats the criteria for notability as stated in WP:CORP: "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations."

I do not see why this article should be deleted when there are articles for the following:


 * SuperOffice
 * SugarCRM
 * Zimbra
 * Citadel/UX
 * Centraview
 * Cougar Mountain Software

I have done most of the editing on the article and I agree that is not a very good idea. If anything in the article needs to changed please do so. --Sleepyhead 13:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This argument is specious - existence of other articles for minor software of no verifiable importance does not justify inlcusion of all such. You are free to nominate those other articles for deletion should you feel they fall below the level for inclusion. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] AfD? 13:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have now nominated several similar articles for deletion. If the others are kept then the 24SevenOffice should be kept as well. There must be a general concensus which applies to all articles that are about products, websites or companies. --Sleepyhead 09:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally I don't really care about the article itself, but I'm sick of having to revert the addition of a link to this article into other articles where it doesn't belong. As far as I can see, the authors worked out that a link to their homepage would survive a lot longer if they wrapped an article around it. Rufous 17:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Clearly engaged in a promotional compaign, excessive internal linking and categorisation (see what links here), while the linking might be relevant it is not in accordance with the notability of the company when it puts itself on the same footing and in the same sentence as SAP or salesforces.com, the tone of the the article is adevertorial too, puts his link in the first position and removes his competition too, see here for instance Software_as_a_Service and its history--Khalid hassani 16:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete a perfect example of vanispamcruftisement. --King of All the Franks 07:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. Reason to be kept: WP:CORP states: "A company or corporation is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: 3. The company's or corporation's share price is used to calculate stock market indexes 5 6. Being used to calculate an index that simply comprises the entire market is excluded." 24SevenOffice is listed on the OTC-market in Norway. The current market value is 122 000 000 NOK. --Sleepyhead 10:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Per WP:CORP, Being used to calculate an index that simply comprises the entire market is excluded. Which stock market index is this <$20m company included in? - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] AfD? 14:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The OTC-market in Norway. See this link. --Sleepyhead 15:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Press coverage today after signing partner agreement with Europe's larget network indepentend ISP; Active24: http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/-active-24-asa-signs-cooperation-agreement-with-24sevenoffice-/2006/jan/1273502.htm
 * I don't speak Norwegian, but that sure looks like a whole-market index to me. And the press coverage is apparently a press release, also specifically excluded under WP:CORP. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] RfA! 12:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes it is a press release - but not our press release. The press release from Active24. --Sleepyhead 14:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. blatant advertising by an employee. Vote unsigned by user User:81.99.60.240.


 * Comment. Does 47,100 google hits make it notable? --Sleepyhead 16:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Not by itself, no. Attaining/buying/spamming links is easy and can be done by people within the company. Rufous 12:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. I understand the effort to reduce the presence of what are essentially adverts from wikipedia. However, if the article provides tangible and useful facts about the software, and is written in an impartial manner, I see no reason why - as an encyclopaedia - we cannot include such articles. They have their uses. It is one of the few places where one can find publically editable information about an application. There seem to be those who would not allow any articles about software just because a traditional encyclopaedia would not include them. There are also those who try to quantify importance, often using 'Google hits' or other such indicators. I believe that this is wrong.
 * My opinion is... allow articles for Software - no matter how small, PROVIDED that the software exists (not vapourware), the article is likely to be of use to someone researching the software and that any editors known to be linked to the company behave responsibly with regard to link inclusion. Rob cowie 17:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Merely existing is not enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia by anyone's standards. Johnleemk | Talk 07:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. That isn't what I said. Rob cowie 11:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't think the company is notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia entry and the article seems a little bit biased to be written by only one author. Achen00 06:10, 13 January 2006 (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.