Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feith Systems


 * 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. I'm dismissing the "keep" opinions by single-purpose accounts because they do not address the policy-based argument for deletion: that the article is unsalvageably promotional and would need to be rewritten from scratch, by an editor who is not associated with the company. Several editors who voiced "keep" opinions have also been blocked for sockpuppetry, see Sockpuppet investigations/ZeroesAndOnes/Archive.  Sandstein  09:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Feith Systems

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

advertising The Banner talk 23:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Any spammy content can be fixed but this appears to be a somewhat notable company, at least among US government procurement agencies. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 01:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That means chopping off everything except (parts of) the lead... You can't be that important as claimed in the article with just 50 staff. The Banner talk 12:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Too promotional.  I wouldn't be surprised if it were created by the corporation itself.  It would be better to start over from scratch. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't believe there's any meaningfully salvageable content. OSborn arfcontribs. 01:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep See, here's my issue: I don't see any difference in this article than in the articles of anyone else in their space I looked at before forming my opinion, such as Hyland Software, Autonomy Corporation, Perceptive Software (those are appropriately marked as "appears to be written like an advertisement", and so is this), etc., or pretty much any company that's not the size of IBM or Microsoft. So if you're going to delete this one, you would have to delete all the others, and a huge portion of companies on Wikipedia for deletion. If you were to delete this entry, and none of the other companies in the space, you would be acting unfairly and not in an even-handed manner, and that's against everything I know Wikipedia to be. For all I know, the person that originally nominated this for deletion could be close to one of this company's competitors. //  And if you read the article, and see all the firsts and mosts and onlys of this company in their space, they are clearly notable, or at the very least, as notable as any other midrange software company.  //  And I don't understand at all WikiDan61's argument "You can't be that important as claimed in the article with just 50 staff."; that's a ludicrous statement. What difference does that make? How many engineers do you deem appropriate to write software?  //  Bottom line: Delete all companies similar to this or delete none; we're nothing if not for an even playing field. Keep with 'advert' tag and leave it. --MPH (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC) Note: While not clear from the signature, MPH is, in fact, the primary author of the article in question.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep This company seems to have been around for a long time and has a slew of customers. Plus, they look have interesting certifications and firsts on those certs.  Also, I checked out some of the others in the document management space, and they are all similarly written in terms of topics and content. --Dzan2583 (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC) — Dzan2583 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Many government and enterprise organizations utilize Feith software to run their business. Maybe some of the customer use cases should be included.  I don't see any reason why it should be removed.--Alaynep (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC) — Alaynep (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Not sure why this is flagged for deletion. A mid-size company describing all their firsts,  Heavily used by the US Government and multiple large corporations. I looked at some of the links above and they are all similar, describing their history and products. --Scvff (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC) — Scvff (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Attention last four "keep-voters": see Sockpuppet investigations/ZeroesAndOnes. The Banner talk 01:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I have no idea who Dzan2583, Scvff, or Alaynep are. They are people voting that have every right to their opinions that should not be summarily dismissed. I really have nothing else for you because this entire process is confusing and strange. That being said, I think that argument that the Feith Systems article is in no way different than any other of that company's competitions' articles and is being singled out, and if you delete this article you need to delete all the others, holds water. Please elaborate for me how the other similar companies mentioned are different than this one, and maybe I'll understand more. Or put them all up for nomination. Regardless, it would seem to a layperon as me that your decision has already been made regardless of comment or discussion, from anyone. I maintain that regardless of authorship, the company (and the article) remains notable and unique it its field, at least as even or more than other similar companies that exist on Wikipedia. --ZeroesAndOnes (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Changing my opinion to delete. Given the bad faith exhibited by the creator and editors of this article, I believe the article was created solely for promotional purposes.  Any legitimate article about this company would need to start from scratch.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete It's an advertisement type piece with insufficient importance for its own article.--Stormbay (talk) 04:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: Notable! This company has been around for a long time and has many customers. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, almost a speedy as pure promotion/advertisment. Not impressed by the sock/meatpuppeting going on here, either.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:44, 5 January 2014 (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.