Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Personyze


 * 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Personyze

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Looks like an advertisement due to the extensive media coverage section. Especially the copying of page titles into the text gives a strong feeling of promotion. For instance: On July 25, TheNextWeb reported that Personyze offers insanely targeted personalization with Rapleaf integration compared with this. Night of the Big Wind talk  20:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: I cleaned up the article, removed many peacock terms, uploaded the logo, trimmed it down to a stub. But this company is def. notable. mabdul 03:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! You have removed my worries about the promotional side of the article. But the worry of Wikidemon about the notability seems also correct. Night of the Big Wind  talk  10:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems to meet WP:GNG / WP:CORP. WP:HEY. Nice work by Mabdul.  Chzz  ► 03:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The issues has been adressed by Mabdul--Hallows AG (talk) 04:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. I believe it squeaks past WP:CORP and WP:WEB by a hair.  There are lots of minor mentions in major sources (the company itself seems to have found all of them).|415  And there are a few substantial mentions, indicating that the tech press (and tech coverage in broader mainstream press like Reuters) believes the company is worth noting.  In substance, it is believable that an 18-person company working in behavioral analytics / ad networks / or whatever it is they do (it would be nice if the article said what they actually do) is notable.  Such a company, if it were in the U.S., would be the subject of lots of tech press.  Perhaps there is foreign language press for this one.  - Wikidemon (talk) 08:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Since when is it "evil" to collect and "present" the media coverage about the own company on the own homepage. I know many examples from bigger companies do that (e.g. Opera Software). mabdul 11:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: The media coverage has been shortened but if we will further not mention anything about it (Like what media think about it), then it will become a sort of vague article not referencing any thing.  Usmanwardag (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as not having a claim of notability. If such a claim is found and integrated into the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: Hi editor, can you give me sometime to edit the article?  Usmanwardag (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2011 (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.