Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verismic Software


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Verismic Software

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Remove this article - User:HeidiSmith admits in their talk page that they created the Verismic Software article as part of their paid employment. If this isn't a COI then I don't know what is! The author has crafted an article made of self-published material and other links of a most 'advertorial' nature. It seems obvious the prime aim of the article is to self-promote and it should be withdrawn.

There are clear notability concerns. Source 1 is a type of press release by the creator of the Company. Source [3] is a press release and the rest of the sources are passing mentions, or don't mention the subject at all like [2]. The only source that may be reliable is this, but honestly and most of these local business news sites content is press releases, which this article sounds like. All the sources seem to have problems of independence and/or lack of substantial coverage. It seems clear it was created with a self-promotional intent. Whatyousaying (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

This article has been created and then deleted at least three times in the last 12 months. On each occasion it has appeared in a similar format and without much difficulty established that it was self-promotional. On this occasion the author has admitted working for the subject corporation from the get-go. At least they're being honest but this the reliable, independent, standard we aspire too. The article needs to go.31.185.142.25 (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC) 
 * Comment: the WP:COI issue can be addressed without AfD. I . &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. The company develops solutions to extend systems management and service desk capabilities.  References are to press releases and to industry analyst reviews that do not establish notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Good to see this rather self-promotional article now has some more balance. Maybe keep and see how it develops?Hopeandglory7 (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Σ  τ  c . 01:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article is troubling. The only apparent claim to notability is the 2011 Green IT award, but the URL is about voting for 2012 award. Following the link to the 2011 winners just gives pictures and who won the award; there's no text describing why VS won or the breadth of its competition for the award. And the award is the "One to Watch Product" -- a speculative award. GreenIT magazine may also have limited scope. The Analyst Reviews section points to a $3995 Ovum report; the Business Green summary just says that VS was reviewed; there is no indication of a favorable review. Even if the review is good, the Ovum report is clearly narrow. Krauss' blog puts an asterisk after VS -- which means "Vendor was not surveyed or did not participate for this report". I don't see general publications commenting on VS. The VS-is-a-member-of-X pages say little; one page even describe how easy it is to join. I didn't open the financial statements because they are not independent, but the WP article uses those statements in a negative reflection on VS -- a material uncertainty about VS being a going concern. The press releases/direct quotes are not independent either. I'm left with the South Lanarkshire Council statements by Janine Woodley. All it really suggests is that SLC has the software; it does not survey the field to say VS is notable. I don't see enough here to say that VS' Power Manager is notable, so VS cannot claim N from its product. Glrx (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per my evaluation of sources in the DRV, no evidence of meeting WP:CORP, with no evidence of significant, reliable coverage independent of the company. Secret account 03:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I wrote the second version of this article about a year ago. The vendor is reasonably well known but perhaps keen to over emphasis their own importance. The article can be improved over time.Hnobley (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per Smerdis of Tlön. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:55, 7 March 2012 (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.