Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EWise


 * 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. Nakon 00:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

EWise

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Expired prod, deleted and now restored few months earlier as it has been contested. I am not sure if WP:REFUND has been followed as I was not linked to the place it was originally contested, but in any case given the article unchanged state I stand by my original rationale - in short, spam, or in detail: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (companies) requirement." Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  12:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * In answer to Piotr's comment about WP:REFUND, no, it wasn't taken there. There was just a messages on my talk page contesting the deletion. It is true that Proposed deletion says "If the article has already been deleted, please go to Requests for undeletion", but since any PROD-deleted article where the deletion is contested is automatically restored, it is common practice to just restore such an article on request, without making the editor who objects go along and repeat their objection at WP:REFUND, and I see no reason not to follow that practice. In fact, I am considering whether to amend the wording of Proposed deletion to recognise established practice. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that the policy should be changed in the way you described; however back on topic - are you even sure User_talk:JamesBWatson - which the request you presumably refer to - was even requesting said undeletion? Perhaps I am tired, but I tried reading it twice, and it seems like gibberish to me (but perhaps I am missing some context). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I am sure it wasn't requesting undeletion: it was just complaining about the deletion. However, when an editor who clearly doesn't know how PROD works complains about a deletion, it is reasonable to take that as contesting the deletion and treat it accordingly. The whole spirit of Proposed deletion is that it is only for uncontroversial deletions, and if anyone objects to a deletion then it is not uncontroversial, whether they express their objection as a request for undeletion or not. However, this is really off-topic for this page, which is supposed to be about whether the article should be deleted, and if you want further discussion of how and why it came to be undeleted you are welcome to post to my talk page. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, in that case, since acting on behalf of said newbie - in good faith, and I support both newbie help in general, and your helpful attitude in this case - you nonetheless made me spend several minutes on my time on what I consider to be a spam article, and given as no other editor has expressed interest in this debate so far, would you mind offering your opinion on whether this article should or shouldn't be deleted? PS. On the subject of best practices, may I suggest that if you do a courtesy undeletion of a prod, you also follow it up with a courtesy AfD? Along the lines of balancing a favour to a spammer with a favour to the community. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * On the subject of "offering [my] opinion on whether this article should or shouldn't be deleted", I was drafting a post on that subject when you posted the above message: you may read it below. On your other points, they are, as I have already indicated, off topic for this page. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete The references in the article don't come within a million miles of suggesting notability. Two of the three references don't even mention EWise, and one of those two is an advertisement on the web site of a business which according to the article belongs to EWise; the third one merely gives such information about the company as the names of its executives and "How they describe themselves", together with what looks to me like a promotional video, though I am not at present able to listen to it. I have searched for better sources, and failed to find any. (Also, if the article is kept, it will need to be re-written, as its current version reads to me like promotion.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep somewhat on the buble here, but there's a bunch of articles.
 * Techcrunch
 * Bloomberg
 * Banking Technology
 * Denver Post
 * Venture Beat
 * Venture Beat syndicated to New York Times
 * Sydney Morning Herald
 * --Samuel J. Howard (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know what "on the buble" means, but I don't see any of those links as providing evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. One of them is a dead link, two are pages simply announcing that EWise has obtained some financing, and the the others are all pages that are not primarily about EWise, but just briefly mention EWise from once to a few times. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails wp:corp. LaMona (talk) 04:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Of the various references offered, only one - the one in the [Sydney Morning Herald - is an Independent Reliable Source with any significant coverage about the company itself. The others are routine announcements of funding, partnership deals, etc. This is not enough to meet [[WP:CORP]].
 * 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.