Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ISNetworld


 * 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 Only references seemed to business rankings and stock reports, not the stuff of wikipedia notability, or to support the claim, below, that the company invented the on-line compliance gig.--Salix (talk): 21:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

ISNetworld

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Author tried to nominate this for AFD but didn't finish the process. Note that other editors have made edits, so db-author doesn't qualify. Sources seem to be little more than press releases. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The article asserts notability by its rankings in Inc. Magazines various lists (which are properly referenced with links to Inc.'s websites). I'm not sure why the author tried to have the page deleted via db-author; I am trying to engage the author in a dialog about that matter.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I reviewed their website, company has over 25,000 company subsriptions to their software, covering nearly 4 million workers, is expanding around the globe, and is growing rapidly. Could be one to watch and it is much better when we are ahead of the curve as a resource rather than behind it!  MillinKilli 23:55, 2 August 2010(UTC) — MillinKilli (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete This page provides untruthful information. Znulisch (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC) — Znulisch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete Is an advertisement for the business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katie125 (talk • contribs) — Katie125 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. Advertising for a very behind the scenes business: web-based contractor and supplier management system utilized by large organizations to help manage their contractors and suppliers around the world.  No indication of the kind of historical, technical, or cultural significance that makes for long term historical notability.  Inclusions in Top 100 or Top 500 lists of fast growing business do not confer notability on each business in the list. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I differ with Smerdis ... Smerdis is wrong in his assertion that this has no "historical, technical, or cultural significance".  In reviewing their website, it is clear that these guys invented the on-line compliance gig and are cranking it out big time.  This is historical, no doubt, and the technical boundaries and cultural change are significant - sharing training data on personnel over the net??? - sound like a Monster.com, which we have an article on.  As for advertising, I don't think so, maybe I can work on the description a bit, but Monster's is "Monster.com is one of the largest employment websites in the world", which we passed.  I, too, have tried to engage the author, we shall see.  But the fact is that someone seems to have stumbled on a very significant, fast growing private company that little is known about, but that is growing by leaps and bounds and has a huge customer base.  Aren't we supposed to be a source for notable, verifiable information?  Haven't we done that here?  I think TenPoundHammer and Smerdis should drop their Delete claims and we let this one live. Still a Strong Keep to me!  [user: MillinKilli]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by MillinKilli (talk • contribs) 23:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)  — MillinKilli (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. This was a summer project that I thought about doing for a company I studied in school. I don't think this company is big enough to have a wiki page considering most of the companies that have a page are big corporations. Also this company currently doesn't have enough articles to be unbiased since most of the information they have is from Press Releases. Also look at the current information on the wiki page all it has are the locations, the history which is pulled directly from the ISN press releases and verbiage that I pulled directly from the ISN company website.This is a private company and a wiki page runs the risk of creating a negative image for the company. This company does not have enough reputable connections to have a wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etyler22 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment Whether a company is private or public is immaterial to the discussion. The only criterion for inclusion is whether the company is notable, per Wikipedia guidelines.  Clearly, based on the discussion on this page, opinion is divided over that matter.  And a Wiki page only risks creating a negative image of a company if the verifiable facts (i.e. the facts already in the public record) already create a negative image of the company.  If not, than any negative information in the article that is not properly sourced can be removed.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 10:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. This article doesn't provide truthful information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KCP88 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)  — KCP88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. This article is merely an advertisement for the company and should not have a wiki page. There is inaccurate information on this page, and a small, private company such as this one should not have a wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Picnictable (talk • contribs) 19:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)  — Picnictable (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment With all these new users creating accounts solely for the purpose of !voting on this AFD, it's beginning to smell awfully socky around here!!! WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the above comment provides un truthful information -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  20:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Taking the number of Inc. articles and other references into account, I think this does meet the notability requirements. -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  21:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete When an SPA says "Could be one to watch", I tend to think there are no better refs to be found. And the ones there are aren't particularly what I'd look for for establishing anything more than existence. Admittedly, there are SPAs on the other side. "A small, private company such as this one should not have a wikipedia article" - why not? Small private companies CAN be notable. This one doesn't seem to be so far, to my eyes. On the other hand, I would suggest to those saying there is inaccurate information in the article should put their cards on the table, and share their knowledge with us - provided they can give references. If they don't, they will most likely be ignored. Peridon (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2010 (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.