Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cashmaster


 * 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   no consensus.  Sandstein  17:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Cashmaster

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable company producing non notable cash machines.. Paste (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

delete - Not notable. Most of the "sources" are www.cashmaster.com.--Pecopteris (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - it's very spammy. - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article has reliable sources, including http://www.business7.co.uk/business-news/breaking-business-news/2007/12/14/cashmaster-spends-300-000-on-new-machinery-97298-20251274/ and http://www.extendedretail.com/eu/pastissue/article.asp?art=269375&issue=189 As well, the company has been discussed in the Scottish Parliament, as verified by the links to that site. The fact that some of the references are to the company's own site does not detract from the fact that notability is established by the reliable sources. Similarly, "spamminess" can be fixed like any other style issue, and is not an argument for AfD. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - one of the reasons why I like to delete spam is because, in my view, any article that is created as spam will be forever tainted by it. The only way to properly de-taint the text is to start again, from scratch, with a neutral author. I realise that the present text could be altered so that it doesn't look like spam, but I argue that as long as it's built on spam, it remains tainted. - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. An article's creator does not own the article. An existing stub is always a help for a good editor who wants to expand an article. And sometimes articles that look like spam are written by inexperienced editors with no connection to the subject. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete = Cashmaster is mentioned in passing in a sentence in the Scottish Parliament discussion. (The discussion lasted over eight hours.)  The Extended Retail Solutions article is a press release as is the Business7 article.  iExtenso says on its about page: "iXtenso presents all of the suppliers, products and services demanded by the retail sector while featuring this information in-depth."  Therefore, the presence of Cashmaster products on their page isn't meaningful.  (You might as well link to Amazon.com.)  Portfolio has more than half a million company profiles, so this link also doesn't show notability.  Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 07:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is factual and accurate to the companies history as per the references and further research. Companies such as De la rue, Wincor Nixdorf, and companies under the Group Halma PLC have analogous pages and citations. Please note: Spam is an attempt to force a message on people who would not otherwise choose to receive it, this cannot be regarded as spam as the information is historic, meaningful and serves a purpose. (Cone28 (talk) 11:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cone28 (talk • contribs)


 * Keep In reply to 'Paste's comment that the company produces "non notable cash machines". In actual fact the company produce machines that count cash by weighing it. A genuine and notable alternative to counting by hand and a friction banknote counters. The wikipedia page for this actually comments on weight based counting. Surely this means the technology is in fact notable. Stewart1985 (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment As far as I am aware cash counting machines that weigh the cash are by n means restricted to this company.Paste (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment You are right in this fact but as stated previously there are numerous reasons for the posting to be valid. Saying that the cash machines are non notable would bring other posts into question. If the machines were mentioned on their own there would be no requirement for the 'cashmaster' post I can agree with you there. But as there are other reasons for the post being made in the first place it would only be neglegant not to mention what the company do and would in turn make the post a waste of time. The original post for the technology has been clearly referenced. Stewart1985 (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Stewart1985 has edited only this page and the Cashmaster article.  Cone28 has edited only this page and the Cashmaster article, except for edits to add a link to the Cashmaster article to the article for the town of Rosyth and the article for banknote counters.  Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 09:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. I have never heard of this company before, so why have an article on it? You may as well write an article on the family-run sweet shop at the end of my street. TopGearFreak   Talk  16:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical  Cyclone  16:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable and encyclopedic entry on a company more than 30 years old. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I feel compelled to comment again, User:TopGearFreak is correct the arguments being used would mean that we should have an article on every company that any info can be found about on the web, albeit he is possibly being sarcastic to make a point. User:ChildofMidnight seems to be saying that we keep any article that is written in an 'encyclopedic' form and is on a company that has existed for 30 years. Cashmaster is a reputable company, I am sure, who produce good cash counting machines but that does not mean they should appear in an encyclopedia. There must also be at least some doubt about whether the two main contributors to the article are of a neutral point of view as expressed by User:Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth. Paste (talk) 08:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My argument would support keeping any article on a company 30 years old that is notable and has an encyclopedic article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's certainly a logical and sensible position to take. I agree with it entirely; we should keep articles that are encyclopedic and are about a notable subject.  However, I don't think that this article is about a notable subject, and much of the article reads like an unencyclopedic advertisement, so I think this article fails to match the position that we should keep encyclopedic articles about notable subjects.  Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 00:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to fix any elements in the article that aren't appropriate. As far as its notability, it's not a clear cut case. It has some citations, but they could be better. At least we strongly agree about what we disagree about. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I must agree with User:ChildofMidnight here. The argument is starting to move away from the notability of the subject and more towards the credibility and neutral position of myself. As is part of wikipedia lisitngs, the listing is not owned by the initial publisher but is free to be edited by everybody in order to improve it and make it more credible. I feel that enough arguments have been made to support the notability of the article but I do agree that improvements may be necessary to make it conform to all guidelines. I would like to state that this is not my responsibility to fix this and therefore my or any other users neutral view point has no more bearing on the argument. Also in reply to the comment made byUser:TopGearFreak that he has never heard of the company before as a reason for deletion, this is surely not a valid arguement when the whole point in an encyclopedia is to educate and inform. I hardly believe that anybody has heard of every company that has an article about them on wikipedia. Nor do I feel that an international company with offices in many different countries can be compared to a family run sweet shop with a handful of employees. Stewart1985 (talk) 09:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The discussion is solidly on the notability of the corporation. I looked at the article's references and commented on them above.  The references barely give any information at all.  The offices could be mail drops for all we know.  (This is very common, and not a slight on Cashmaster, but it does mean that they're not some continent-striding behemoth. :)  Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Neither myself or the references claim that the company is 'some continent-striding behemoth' and neither do the rules for wikipedia state that the company in question has to be a worldwide cash cow. My argument is that comparing this company to a sweet shop is not a necessary argument to make for deletion. The fact that it is not factual is one thing and the blatantly obvious point that it is clear sarcasm just supports my point that it is not a valid argument. Just like a wikipedia article this argument must be based on fact and notability, not on someones personal opinion of the company. I'm sure there are many other companies with articles on wikipedia with one office and less staff than Cashmaster. Not to divert from this argument but to support mine further, Avalon Guitars is one of many companies that I have found in the same catagory as Cashmaster that has been around for a lot less time. Further more they have a lot more information but their only reference is their own website. If this is acceptable for the way it is written then surely the Cashmaster article with a much greater number of references can be edited in a way that is deemed more acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stewart1985 (talk • contribs) 09:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't an argument that's considered to be persuasive. Speaking to the other comments made here, I feel that you're focusing on the way people are saying things and not on what they say.  Please look beyond an editor's humorous ways of putting things and engage directly with the meat of the arguments.  There are no references that show notability in the article.  My comment at 07:20, 18 November 2008 details this.  Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 10:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I wasn't just commenting on just the suitability of the refernces but also on yours and User:TopGearFreak comments that because you have never heard of Cashmaster that this is a reason for deletion. If you look back User:TopGearFreak never mentioned anything to do with the references. Sugar coating these kind of comments in humour and sarcasm doesn't make them valid or factual. My main reasoning for pointing to another article was that not hearing about a company is not a valid reason for deletion. You have backed up your opinion saying the same thing on several occasions, the comment made by User:TopGearFreak is only personal opinion. As for your comment on the size of the organisation this has no bearing on the argument whether you are relating it to the references or not. The article doesn't claim the company is a massive international company only that they do have offices in other countries. The size of these is not important to the notability of the company and therefore I feel it brings nothing to the argument mentioning it especially in a sarcastic way. Stewart1985 (talk) 12:11, 26 November 2008 (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.