Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SMARTCODE CORP. (2nd nomination)


 * 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 of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

SMARTCODE_CORP.
Article is an advertisement. Company is not noteworthy. Links to this article have been repeatedly added to RFID and deleted as linkspam. If you are connected to the company, or have made major contributions to this article, please disclose this when you vote. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 06:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable advertisement. Although cited as "Among the leading RFID manufacturers" by the Associated Press, not a whole lot of websites mention the company. — Tangot a ngo 08:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. They're notable in the field. (JohnCC 16:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC))
 * Delete. A few PR "wins" doesn't make a company notable. The article is low quality and nobody seems interested in improving it, exactly because the company is not notable. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 15:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)  Keep.  The apparent author has made a good-faith effort to clean up the article, and I've done what I can to help him.  If you want to keep the article, please pitch in and help.  Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 21:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, advertising. --Ter e nce Ong 16:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. &mdash; Khoikhoi 16:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, only references are themselves and a passing mention on CNN once. Reads as a coorperate pitch page. May be notable someday. HighInBC 16:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep They have over 166,000 entries in Google. Seems fine after cleanup.Shukarm 20:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable company with an article trying to sell their product. Also, note that the two people who have voted keep on this RfA are new accounts. Master of Puppets FREE BIRD!  20:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete- in my opnion does not meet WP:CORP. Reyk  YO!  07:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Some of you are venting your anger against the blatant promo style of the writing. I'm the one who added the advert tag, so we agree on that.  However, my reading of WP:CORP suggests the company is indeed notable.  It has mention in CNN and in RFID journal,, the latter was cut from the article in an overzealous edit.  Clean it up and keep it. OnPatrol 18:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: This article has been bad for a long time.  If somebody cleans it up, I will consider changing my vote. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 20:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - I've cleaned it up a bit and will continue in the next days, the company is notable with Forbes, CNN, Information Week, RFID Journal and Grtner, AMR, ABI Research etc. - SC Web 02:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Point of Order - it seems that User:SC Web and User:Shukarm were created after this vote started.
 * Weak keep per OnPatrol. -- DS1953 talk 04:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've cleaned up the article per WP:CORP - SC Web 11:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete nn company trying to get free advertising. Tychocat 02:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete -- cleanup was admirable, but no evidence that they meet the notability criteria of WP:CORP. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom and savidan. Zaxem 08:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - further to my keep vote above, the article now references stories about the co. in rfidjournal, cnn, and information week. Notability is pretty clear.  (Please remember I'm the one who placed the advert tag on this.) WP:CORP specifies:
 * A company or corporation is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
 * 1. The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. -- OnPatrol 18:37, 4 June 2006 (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.