Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I-meet


 * 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I-meet

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

Contested prod. This is yet another niche-specific social networking site with no evidence of notability, created by SPAs as an advertisement for a startup which was launched late last year. Originally claimed to be the first of its kind but that's now been removed, so why is this article here? Very few relevant Google hits and nothing other than the usual PR material. No references other than PR, either. Fails WP:N andy (talk) 10:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Sorry, this is my first time using this wikpedia and i'm new to navigating it. I didn't know posting article like this would piss so many people off. Our company would like to introduce i-Meet to the world, which is making waves in our meeting industry and has many unique features that are specific only for our industry. We have over 9000 members now in a short 6 months and the largest organization in this industry space is Meeting Planner international with around 30k.
 * Delete - no assertion of notability even. TrulyBlue (talk) 11:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Weak Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete reads like PR material, borderline A7. - 2 ... says you, says me 16:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NOT a place to self-promote a product, and also runs into WP:COI by creator.SpikeJones (talk) 21:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding notablity, how do i make my article more notable, Our PR releases contains quotes from large companies in our industry space, such as Starcite and influential people in the industry such as Rod Marymor and even featured in the Philadelphia inquirer, one of the largest newspaper in philadelphia.

I will edit the references to make it more notable and the article to tone down the tone and i hope everyone will take a second look at it Killrek (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC) — Killrek (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You cannot make an article more notable. Notability refers to the subject of the article and is explained clearly in WP:N. I'm also very concerned that this is yet another account that you're using to edit this article - four so far - why do you keep changing your identity? andy (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking over your recent edits to the article, I don't see that you're establishing notability. They all seem to be write-ups based on press releases, mostly dating from the launch of the site. Some of the references are very thin - e.g. one says only that "In my next column, I’ll write about the latest entry to the social networking melee, www.i-Meet.com" and nothing more - and others are completely unacceptable, for example one is a link to a Twitter page. andy (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - As andy says, the issue is not the notability of the article, but of the company. Either the company meets the notability requirements or it does not.  At the simplest, you need to provide multiple reliable, independent, non-trivial references to establish your company's notability.  Each of those three bolded words is critical.  If a reliable news organization did an independent, non-trivial write-up about the company, then that would go a long way towards showing that the company is notable.  However, if a reference fails any of the three, then it is worthless for showing notability.  Press releases, and any direct reporting of such, are not "independent".  Nor are your company's own web pages.  Blogs would not be considered "reliable".  A brief mention in an article where the company is not the real subject would be a "trivial" mention.  If no coverage exists that meets these requirements, then you are likely fighting a losing battle here, as your company most likely just does not meet Wikipedia's required levels of notability.
 * On a related subject, you mention wanting to introduce your company to the world. Wikipedia is expressly not supposed to be used for such purposes.  Wikipedia's purpose is to document things/people who are already notable, not to be used for reaching notability in the first place.  Sorry. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

For the notablity criteria on a company, can you make it more specific? If our company works with major tourist boards and major players in our industry and is reported in the magazines related to our industry, will it meet the notability criteria? If it is the largest social network in our industry which indicate that a lot of people in our industry are interested and supporting it, is it notable? Our company founder was interviewed in a mainstream press by the philadelphia inquirer, does that contribute to the notablity criteria? Btw, this will be the final account i will be using because i just took over my colleague, who updated the previous entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killrek (talk • contribs)
 * Read WP:CORP, WP:WEB, and WP:NOTE. The notability criteria for companies, web sites, and anything in general are spelled out there.  If you meet one of the listed criteria, and can show that you meet it, then your company is notable.  If the company does not meet any of the criteria, then it simply is not notable. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - This article was intended to "introduce i-Meet to the world", which is not at all what Wikipedia is about. Basically, an attempt to promote the company to make it more notable, while a company shouldn't have an article until it's already notable. --  At am a chat 18:00, 2 July 2009 (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.