Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recommind


 * 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   deleted by Jimfbleak as "spam". lifebaka++ 16:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Recommind

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article was originally tagged for speedy deletion as a copyvio of this page, but that allegation appears to me to be unfounded. While a few sentences are similar, it is not a blatant copy/paste job. As for the article, it sounds a little spammy to me and may not meet notability guidelines, but I think it deserves discussion. Nick—Contact/Contribs 23:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. Spam or copyvio - take your pick. The lead section consists of (1) a factual statement about the company location - that's ok, but then (2) the Company's own profile (copied verbatim from the "About us" section of the page linked above), and (3) advert-like claims of delivering "powerful solutions" etc. Article has been speedily deleted 4 times already; all five versions were created by the same editor. I42 (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, obvious spam and no notability. Haakon (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The independent mentions by Deloitte and KMWorld, and the minor prizes the company got, seems to edge it to notability.  LotLE × talk  01:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Easy speedy delete as spam unless someone gives it a total rewrite. Hairhorn (talk) 05:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why can't that person be you? If you believe that when rewritten the article has a place in an encyclopedia then it should be kept and rewritten, not thrown out because no-one can be bothered rewriting it. Weakopedia (talk) 10:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why should it be me? I'm not interested in facilitating spammers and I haven't a clue whether this is notable or not. Hairhorn (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you haven't a clue whether this is notable or not then you should perhaps not have voted on the subject. Weakopedia (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * An article which is unambiguously spam is eligable for speedy deletion db-g11 regardless of notability, so whether the subject is notable or not is immaterial. I42 (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * An article about a subject which is notable only needs to be rewritten to be spam no longer. A quick Google search shows this company and it's award-winning status discussed by the Independant on Sunday, Florida Bar News, Tri-Valley Herald, and online journals such as EarthTimes and International Business Times as well as winning awards with such publications as the Law Technology News. The problem here seems to be more the manner of inclusion than inclusion itself which is something that can be remedied. Weakopedia (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If the article is rewritten without the spam or copyright violation before the AfD ends then great - we can reconsider. But no-one is obliged to do it, and no-one has yet. Nor should we keep this version of the article on the off-chance they might. I42 (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That is then a failing of this community. You have written more words in this deletion review than were needed to rewrite the article to your liking. Weakopedia (talk) 10:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that you haven't even touched the entry yourself, I'm not clear on why you're throwing stones. Hairhorn (talk) 14:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You wrote that after I had moved a copy of the article to a userpage in order to work on it without causing disruption. Maybe you would like to help. Weakopedia (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep and rewrite as per Hairhorns suggestion. Weakopedia (talk) 10:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite as per Hairhorns suggestion (2). Well, if this article is to be deleted, I suggest deleting many other biographies in Wikipedia, which seem to have minor importance or is not written acconding to the Wikipedia guidances. Well, instead of deleting I really suggest that someone could edit and adapt it to Wikipedia. Luz del Fuego (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, likely speedy delete, unambiguous advertising: Recommind delivers powerful solutions to efficiently and accurately handle electronically stored information for the world’s largest enterprises and law firms. No one's obliged to improve articles about behind the scenes tech firms, either.  It's not like we'd be missing anything if we denied them a platform. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Provisional delete. I had tagged the article as advert. The guys that founded this company are also the brains behind probabilistic latent semantic analysis, which was created by the good-standing editor User:Rama. I've contacted him to ask if he wants clean-up this article, but no reply so far. The company is notable,       but the article needs a total rewrite, and I'm not volunteering because I don't know much about it. They actually make search products for legal firms, e-discovery and the like. Pcap  ping  16:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - as Pcap observes, this company is notable. The article is written in a promotional manner, but lack of neutrality is not by itself grounds for deletion; it just means it should be rewritten from a more neutral point of view. Robofish (talk) 02:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact overtly promotional language that would require a total rewrite is grounds for speedy deletion, no matter how notable the company. Anyone is welcome to rewrite the entry, but there is no requirement to keep it hanging around waiting for that to happen. Hairhorn (talk) 04:56, 24 January 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.