Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GoConnect


 * 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 keep and clean up (left some ideas at the article talk page). Orderinchaos 11:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

GoConnect

 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * = article creator

Looks like this is an Australian ISP. Was nominated for speedy but I have refused on grounds of notability claims on the stock exchanges of two countries. Author has claimed on the talk page to have the necessary non-trivial mentions in independent sources but they have not yet been added to the article. No vote from me. Sam Blacketer 10:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep.  Delete  I'm the one who added the db-spam tag because, in its present condition, that's what the article is: corporate advertising.  Knowing, however, that AfDs can result in article improvement along encyclopedic NPOV lines, with the elimination of the corporate conflict of interest slant, I'm all in favour of the process, whichever way it goes.  I'll be more than happy to change my view to "Keep" if the article is sufficiently improved.  — Athaenara 11:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I added primarysources to the article, which normally will attract better references. I hope some of the more enthusiastic "keep"ers will find and add them. — Athaenara 02:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.  -- Canley 14:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Its listed on two stock exchanges. John Vandenberg 23:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. A Google News Archive search shows that there are 350 articles on this company so sources certainly exist to allow for improvement. Capitalistroadster 01:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per previous Australian deletion decisions, companies listed on an exchange are considered notable. Mark the article for cleanup and i'm sure someone will catch it soon. Thewinchester (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not a notable company. Not in ASX100. According to www.smh.com.au, it trades at $0.06, there were no sales this week, there were only 15 sales this month so far, and 175 for the year. Assize 21:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking that up. Could you elaborate on why ASX 100 would be a good way to determine CORP notability in Australia?   If it is being traded by the Australian public, even only 15 people per month, why is it not worthy of note for the benefit of those few that come looking ?  John Vandenberg 21:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus at WP:CORP about whether inclusion on a market board makes a company notable, and it is probably comparable to being in the White Pages. Companies list on the board because they want to raise public money, not because they are notable(although personally, I think that ASX100 companies should be notable as by definition they are the top 100 companies in Australia by market value). Putting this aside, there are no secondary sources provided, so therefore it isn't notable, and in any event, the article doesn't demonstrate why the company is any more notable than the thousands of other companies around, so in my humble view, the article should be deleted. Assize 04:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I might also add that the Google News items that I looked at it all appear to be rehashing of press releases or stock exchange announcements by the company and wouldn't therefore be allowable as secondary sources.Assize 07:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As an aside, a forum search for GoConnect on Whirlpool only turns up one single but interesting result. Searching for m-Vision GoConnect brings back a few results from publishers I've not seen before  and a few I have..John Vandenberg 08:08, 8 May 2007 (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.