Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/On-Site.com


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

On-Site.com

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Appears to fail WP:PROMO and WP:CORP. Searches result in little to improve the article. Chrisw80 (talk) 06:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - After searching and finding nothing but a few passing mentions at News ("On-Site.com software"), and I concluded this is questionably notable for the applicable notability and the listed sources are not convincing enough even the listed NYTimes which only mentions them a few times.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. basically its just advertising.  DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. The NY Times article includes a picture of Jake Harrington, who is the current CEO at On-Site and quotes him a number of times as well as mentioning On-Site.com by name. There are Wikipedia articles for many other companies that operate in the property management software space.  I'd like to help improve the quality of this page.  I've submitted a few improvements this morning and will work with a few others to continue.  --Bi9kahuna (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If you can multiple independent and reliable sources that discuss the subject comprehensively and are willing to change the article to remove the promotional nature of it, please do. The NYT article is only a passing mention, no matter how you look at it, specifically because they are not the subject of the article.  While this would be fine to cite in an article for content, it does not help establish notability.  Please read WP:CORP for more information about corporate notability guidelines.  The other references are also only non-notable awards, passing mentions or primary sources.  Regarding the comment regarding other articles existing, just because other articles exist, doesn't make an argument (in and of itself) for this one - especially if those articles are not as inadequately sourced as this one. Thank you for your interest in this discussion and this article. Chrisw80 (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. If other articles for similar companies are in Wikipedia without being nominated for deletion, the deletion of this article appears biased or possibly malicious. While the notability may be debatable, it isn't clearly "not at all" notable. Wikipedia is not limited by the number of pages it can print in a volume, that's its benefit. 172.10.237.153 (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, other articles existing is not a good argument by itself for a 'keep' in a deletion discussion. Also, please remember to assume good faith when working with other editors.  Accusations of bias or malicious intent are not constructive or acceptable.  Please refer to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:NPA. Chrisw80 (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You're right, I'm sorry. I'm the original author of this article, and it has changed quite a lot - what makes the company notable has been severely de-emphasized and the emphasis given to non-encyclopedic content. I was very taken aback when I saw it. Bi9Kahuna, the "History" should show a better construction for the article. 172.10.237.153 (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I very much appreciate and accept the apology, thank you. Chrisw80 (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2016 (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.