Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Actimize


 * 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   keep. Shows improvement. Opinions seem to favor giving it some time for further improvement. Shimeru (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Actimize

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Spam, but touts notability, so I am foregoing the speedy for now and will defer it to body else. Extremely promotional, with touting to notability, but none of the articles I looked at have more than minor mention of the company, with the exception of an overview of several loss prevention companies.  Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 14:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep As the author of the page, it is probably not surprising that I vote to Keep the Actimize entry. To delete the page would be the wrong course of action.  Actimize is a legitimate, influential software company in the financial crime prevention and compliance space.  I can point to hundreds of other software companies, many smaller or less notable, with Wikipedia entries.  Admittedly, this is my first foray into the Wikipedia world. So, if there are particular elements (statements or sources) within the page that you want to debate, that would be a healthy discourse.  To label an Actimize Wikipedia entry as 'spam' and thus delete the page would be a disservice to Wikipedia readers. Jstotts (talk) 15:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. If it's obviously spam like this is, notability is irrelevant: provides financial crime (anti-money laundering/fraud prevention), compliance and risk management solutions to the financial services industry.... founded in 1999 by experts in business intelligence and data warehousing and quickly embarked on building packaged trading compliance... the leading provider of Insight from Interactions solutions and value-added services, powered by the convergence of advanced analytics of unstructured multimedia content and transactional data...  That last bit especially sinks to the level of patent nonsense as well. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Point taken Smerdis. I spent some time editing the entry and it has benefited by the removal of the superfluous sections you've referenced above.  Thank you for the feedback.Jstotts (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep but suggest incubate.To the author's credit, he admits a conflict of interest and has done some recent work to clean it up, but the article is still very promotional and most of the references are links to the parent company or press releases. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. The references added seem mostly to routine press release announcements of financial reports or acquisitions, not the sort of thing needed to make a business stand out from the crowd enough for encyclopedia level notability.  On the other hand, the rewrite is much more recognizable as English. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 19:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - the article is a little better, but the only pointers to notability I see are press releases. I'll address the author directly. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 16:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Updated Actimize Entry - First, let me say that everyone’s feedback has been very helpful. Based on that, I recently made substantial changes to all sections of the Actimize entry.  I’ve added many new third-party references, in addition to reports cited in the ‘accolades’ section from leading research and advisory firms Gartner, Celent and Datamonitor.  I also attempted to enrich each section’s description.  I would appreciate any additional feedback you may have.  Thanks, Jstotts (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. Notability is provided. Still reads rather promotional, but this is an intrinsic problem of many firm-related articles. Nageh (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - subject does appear notable, and, although still not perfect, the article has undergone some spam-removing changes since the nomination.   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 14:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete It's useless fluff63.95.64.254 (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2010 (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.