Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ascertia


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 04:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Ascertia

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article has been recreated with a significant number of citations added. However carefully checking the current 22 citations shows most of these are the company's promotional material, a few product review sites (which are in the business of reviewing everything), sites that no longer work or forum discussions. The article says what the company is, but makes no clear or unambiguous claim to notability with associated reliable sources that would satisfy WP:ORG. The list of Partners is ambiguous as frequently such schemes are little more than paying the fee to join or paying the sales commission from the partner's website. Fæ (talk) 11:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- Fæ (talk) 11:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- Fæ (talk) 11:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Agree with nominator's assessment of existing refs. Google News, Books and Scholar found some mentions, but i saw no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources sufficient to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. --Qwfp (talk) 12:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Obvious spamvert, next to no independent coverage, and in the event this company is shown to be notable it needs fundamentally rewriting to not look like a sales pitch. On a wider issue, whilst I don't normally question the motive of the article author, I've looked at the article history and the contributions seems to consist exclusively of promotion of this company, including one article what was deleted by AfD and recreated with no apparent explanation, and dubious external links to Ascertia-related products on other pages. Unless someone gives a good case to act differently, I'm inclined to remove these external links and G4 speedy delete the recreated page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Neville-Smith (talk • contribs) 12:15, 11 April 2011
 * Delete and salt. Yet another software software vendor.  Good to know that their software has software in it.  Article is referenced only to tech spamblogs and internally generated materials, and consists entirely of a self-congratulatory company history and product list.  No showing that this business has had significant effects on history, culture, or technology of the kind that make for long term historical notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: WP:HASREFS I have removed many references pointing to the company home address and added few independant references Mwahaj —Preceding undated comment added 17:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC).
 * Sorry, still can't see much in the way of significant independent third-party coverage. A lot of these references are clear reprints of press releases (not independent) or forum posts (not reliable sources), and a couple of articles mentioning Ascertia as a partner (not significant coverage). Only reference that seems to be close to qualifying is the tentenreviews article, but we'd need a lot more than that single source to qualify for notability. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Added another external link where Ascertia is discussed in Rutgers university Mwahaj
 * Delete - as per nom - frankieMR (talk) 14:44, 12 April 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.