Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GFI Solutions


 * 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. While tempted to relist this due to lack of consensus, looking at the history, I can see that this article was written almost entirely by an employee (or other person with a conflict of interest) of GFI Solutions, so I am applying my admin's discretion with deleting this article. I have no problems with having this article rewritten by a neutral party as long as the content conforms with Neutral point of view policy. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

GFI Solutions
Here we go again. Reads like an advert. Created by and all subsequent edits being by an anon who also linked to the list of ERP vendors, from which web links and redlinks are routinely removed. 564 googles of which 137 unique, private company, no turnover, no evidence of impact, no evidence of meeting WP:CORP. Canonical spam, in other words. Guy 19:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. WP:NOT. -- Nish kid 64 19:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * As a new user to Wikipedia, I agree that I may have gotten a little overenthusiastic. I would very much like, if possible, to create an article that answers Wikipedia requirements. I will definetely review the links created, and have remove the one you mentionned. However, I do note in the regulations thata company which has been written about in the press is eligible. We have had a number of articles published in the media, including the Gazette, Les affaires, Plant  Enginnering, Gestion Logistique, Le Devoir. Admittedly these articles are all Canadian-based, but they are widely read on a local basis. These articles are referenced on our website. We are also a subsidiary of GFI Informatique, which is a public company. I am not sure of the regulations for this situation. Tanja Gehring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TGehring (talk • contribs)
 * TGehring does make a valid point. I do not personally know if these newspapers are popular in Canada, because if they are, then it meets one criterion of WP:CORP. -- Nish kid 64 20:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Newspapers re-hashing a company's press releases ("we have had a number of articles published") does not count. What counts is journalists writing articles of their own about the company.  If you can cite any articles of the latter kind, please do so. Uncle G 09:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * In response the last comment, all the articles I mentionned were written by journalists about our company, as stipulated in the criterion of criterion of WP:CORP. Here are 2 links that serve as example: Catching the wave of the future, from the Gazette. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.254.225.38 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-14 11:59:18
 * That's the sort of stuff that we are looking for. More than 1 article is needed, however.  Please cite more.  Also: Are there any independently written books about this company?  Have any consumer organizations written detailed reports about it? Uncle G 12:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

independent writings, and widely read in Quebec. In answer to your last question, GFI has not been covered in book or consumer organizations.
 * Okay, here is a more complete list of articles. Some are in French, given our geography. They are all

cATCHING THE WAVE OF THE FUTURE/ Desjardins hires outside help for smart card transition, from IT BUSINESS CANADA/ La carte magnétique désuète dès 2008, from LES AFFAIRES/GFI Solutions commandite des gazelles, from DIRECTION INFORMATIQUE Signed: TGehring


 * Keep Notability per WP:CORP has been established,  Tewfik Talk 19:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 *  AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Petros471 20:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, but integrate the sources in the article so another editor doesn't renominate it. (Since you're the one with the stake in the article, TGehring, you should do it.)  ColourBurst 01:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestion. I have added links to the articles within the external links section.Signed: TGehring


 * Am I the only one who feels uncomfortable that the only substantive edits to this article are by a throwaway account with the company's name and the by company's "Data Provider"? Guy 09:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete spam, no independent evidence of notability. --Peta 04:23, 27 September 2006 (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.