Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integration Point


 * 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. — Aitias // discussion  00:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Integration Point

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

Article does not appear to meet WP:CORP. I and other editors have tagged this article multiple times, but keeps removing the tags without addressing the issues, so I'm bringing it to a much larger audience. You can see a review I did of the sources used in the article here. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note that if the article is deleted, the logo must be deleted as well, so I'm listing it here to be thorough. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, article about a non-consumer internet related business, referenced to trade papers you've never heard of, a Global Trade Management and Compliance Software Provider. The capital letters also give away that this is obvious advertising, amd the rest of the text bears this out: Integration Point develops modular trade compliance applications on a single core platform, allowing customers to start with any one of the trade management solutions and continue to add solutions as their needs grow. The integrated solutions allow customers to simultaneously address numerous compliance issues, regardless of the customer's individual internal system. ... In the current global economy there are two main concerns facing importers, exporters, and the vendors who support them. As noted in the Journal of Commerce, Tom Barnes, CEO of Integration Point, explains: "The first is managing cost. The second is remaining competitive." - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Weak delete. The nature of the business is such that it's unlikely to get much coverage in mainstream press, but that does not remove the requirement that there be third party references to establish notability. The references provided are weak - there's a passing mention, articles by members of the company or sponsored by the company and one substantial article - which appears to be a blog. The fact that the article is written from with an obvious WP:POV raises further questions about notability. I42 (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No significant external coverage from notable sources, no proof of notability. Furthermore, reads suspiciously like company propaganda. LK (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: No work has been done to improve the article at this point, so I'm still thinking it should be deleted. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:44, 29 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.