Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Act-On/1

Act-On

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Act-On/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Delisted per lack of effort to resolve concerns after a month, and there have been no "keep" votes Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

This article is an advertisement. It is written with a highly promotional tone by a paid editor with a declared COI. The majority of references do not appear to be reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion and it is embarrassing that we are drowning in articles masquerading as spam let alone promoting them to GA. Citobun (talk) 10:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * After a closer look, I think this article fails GA criteria 2a and 4. It's not indisputably promotional in tone, since it doesn't use obvious promotional phrases, but for sure it is not NPOV. All the information in it is presented as positive for the company, and a lot of the sources are not impartial to the software marketing industry, to say the least. Now to rant a little bit, if I may: I see this as a tricky issue for a lot of Wikipedia articles. In many cases, simply having published detailed articles about companies, even if the information is fully accurate, is often inherently promotional. It can be like advertising through objective material. Wikipedians created this persistent and often overlooked problem for themselves by choosing to write articles about companies. But I recognize there's no going back now, and ironically I've written some articles about organizations. Jsayre64   (talk)  05:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)