Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Webcom, Inc.


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 17:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Webcom, Inc.

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails notability, by not providing evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Deletion History: Previous versions of the article have been speedily deleted twice, on the same grounds as noted above. The current article was proposed for deletion on the same grounds, but the article's creator signified objection by removal of the PROD tag. Davnor (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What is the difference between http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BigMachines and this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webcom,_Inc.)?
 * I take a look at Source Code of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BigMachines and this is very very similar to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webcom,_Inc.
 * BigMachines, Inc and Webcom, Inc are companies with very similar activities ( Sales Configuration, Quoting Software...)
 * What is the reason for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BigMachines is in Wikipedia and, in the same time, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webcom,_Inc. is candidate for deletion?
 * I'm confused - my chiefs wanted me to put Webcom, Inc into Wikipedia - "If BigMachines can be in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BigMachines) than we can also be there"
 * What is going on, maybe BigMachines pay for Wikipedia place?
 * Please answer.
 * Thanks!
 * Milos Jakovljevic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.117.198.238 (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In general, it is not appropriate to reference othWebcom, Inc.er articles in a deletion discussion, because the other article may suffer from the same or similar flaws. (It may be that BigMachines is also a potential candidate for deletion, but that discussion would need to occur separately.) Instead, each article should be judged on its on merits, against Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. For any subject to warrant an article in Wikipedia, it must meet basic notability criteria, and it must support those notability assertions with references to reliable, third-party sources (which do not include self-published sources, or brief company summaries or profiles).
 * Please keep mind, the decision to delete or keep an article is is not subject to financial influence, as you appear to be suggesting. Such an unethical practice is impractical given the open nature of Wikipedia editing: since anyone can nominate an article for deletion, the list of editors that would have to be "bribed" is virtually limitless. Davnor (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I added a lot of references to Webcom, Inc article (references from AppExchange, Oracle PartnerNetwork, salesforce.com, Oncontact CRM ... )

Take a look again, please.

Thanks!

--Milos Jakovljevic 17:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - none of the references provided in the article are appropriate for establishing notability, being mostly directory listings or nor indpendent coverage of a significant nature. My own searches uncover lots of press releases.  The only items that might event remotely qualify as coverage are a couple of local press annocuements,  which look like they were pulled from press releases. -- Whpq (talk) 17:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - non notable company with little to no independent coverage. Currently not much more than an advertisement. --skew-t (talk) 02:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment To be fair to Webcom, and assuming that this article will be deleted, someone should propose deletion of the BigMachines article. The two articles seem to share the same faults, IMO David V Houston (talk) 17:00, 16 April 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.