Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waspit


 * 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. Courcelles (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Waspit

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unremarkable just-launched company with no significant third party references - just a couple of press release replicas. Biker Biker (talk) 13:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

In reference to your comments, this entry was not put up to promote a company, but rather to define a new and innovative technology platform that is the subject of a patent application.
 * Delete - no evidence of notability. andy (talk) 13:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. This is spam, and this business hasn't even had a chance yet to achieve long term historical notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete, but definitely not speedy. http://www.mobilecommercedaily.com/waspit-seeks-niche-in-booming-mobile-payments-space/ indicates some notability, but I simply don't believe enough information exists about the company yet, to write an article that won't read like an advert or a directory entry. DubZog (talk) 14:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Why is it done? Blatant advertising. Carrite (talk) 17:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete I feel like I'm reading the about us page on the company's website.-- LAA Fan '' 00:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

In response to your comments; -	Yes Waspit has just launched but that should not be an issue; the page is about a new technology in an industry sector that is just emerging. An historic presence will evolve with time, but surely Wikipedia is not to be considered oblivious to new technologies that have only recently emerged? -	The references follow the same format as on the ‘Zong’ page, a platform comparative to our own – albeit their platform is primarily centred on PSMS. We invite commentary on any further references that might be considered reasonably required. -	Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia edited by the people and I am assuming most people that read and use Wikipedia would be interested in new developments and new technologies as and when they emerge. -	New technological advances do not have a history, or much info. It is the type of page that can be added to and changed over time (is this not the point of Wikipedia?) -	Also it seems some of you writing comments here, have pages very similar to Waspit’s (with few references other than a personal interview and website – Mutant Pop) so how is this any different. To delete the page would in my opinion undermine the fundamental model behind Wikipedia. I don’t want the page to be deleted. Please let me know what I can update. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.192.197 (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: I see nothing indicating notability. In response to the last comment, Wikipedia isn't about the future--see WP:NOTCRYSTAL (as well as a host of other pages about what notability and reliable sources mean). If it achieves notability in the future, add it back then. Transmissionelement (talk) 15:31, 24 July 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.