Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BizFilings


 * 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) 14:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

BizFilings

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Insufficient evidence of notability: almost all of the sources of information are from the company, so not independent. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 22:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment This was deleted under CSD G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion, and userfied upon request. I told the creator on their talk page that the references were either not independent or were not significant coverage. They added two references (Forbes and NYT) but left the rest as it was. I thought that this should be brought to AfD to get consensus on the issue, as I feel that WP:ORG and WP:GNG are not met.
 * An analysis of the references provided and why I believe that they do not meet ORG/GNG:
 * 'News and Media':
 * The first two links are referred to in my message on the creator's talk page (see User_talk:Julieapeck) ("Today's Tip: Incorporate Online to Save Money". BusinessWeek (Bloomberg) - This is written by BizFilings' GM - not independent; "Recession Sparks Rise in Demand for Women-Owned Home-Based Business Incorporation Services". PRNewswire (Redorbit.com) - This is from a Press Release from BizFilings (hence the "PRNewswire" tag on the site), so it is not independent)
 * The "Forbes' Best of the Web" link is a new one, but the link provided didn't go to a valid page - it was just a page with headers, etc, but no content (I tried it in both Internet Explorer and Safari, in case there was a browser-specific problem) - I have asked the crator of the article if they could find a specific link. However, looking at past issues of "Forbes' BoW", it tends to have very short mentions of a particular website - not major coverage.
 * In the References
 * All of them (apart from the NYT one) are mentioned in my message on the creator's talk page referred to above, and not sufficient to meet the criteria for reliable or independent sources of information - Crunchbase is a wiki-style site, where people upload their own information; the rest are from the company's (or its parent company's) website: hence not independent.
 * The NYT reference: The article contains a single sentence about the Toolkit: When it comes to sorting through financial information, CCH Business Owner’s Toolkit has templates to help examine financial issues as well as other model business documents, checklists and government forms..
 * Overall, I do not see that this added together counts as significant coverage: most of it comes from the company itself - and the two that don't (the Forbes and NYT) either don't have a link that works to go to the correct page, or it is a single-sentence mention - and hence this AfD. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 22:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  —--  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 22:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, weakly. There is also a good deal of advertising language here; the text describes the current owner of the business as a global provider of information, tools and workflow solutions to legal, financial, tax, healthcare and regulatory professionals around the world.  And you need quite a few brief mentions to get to notability.  - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete A single sentence in NYT does not establish notability. Miami33139 (talk) 08:08, 2 January 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.