Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spotware Systems Ltd

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotware Systems Ltd

[edit]
Spotware Systems Ltd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be written like an advertisement, notability is also questionable. PROD was removed by article creator based on argument that it was neutrally written. GrayFullbuster (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you can write "whatever that means" about a topic, it's an indication that there's something to be explained - and that's the role of an encyclopedia. I reserve judgement as yet on whether this subject is notable, and whether the current mess of an article can be turned into anything acceptable. However I for one would really welcome some wiki coverage of market trading platforms. They're a hugely important topic in today's world (they can make my pension double or vanish overnight), yet they're almost invisible to anyone outside the cabal. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously doubt that software (as opposed to its user) can double or reduce one's pension; even if it could, the material on how one can avoid this would be not encyclopedic. That said, even if this article could possibly be somehow helpful (which doesn't seem to be the case, specifically because it is about a company), there is still no good reason to keep it in violation of Wikipedia policy. In the end, we write using publicly accessible sources, and this is an ISV, so it is his work to attract you with an easily accessible information, not Wikipedia's. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk)
FWIW, I gather that 'ECN' in this context means electronic communication network; an intranet for financial brokers. That's a potentially fascinating but poorly made article that could easily stand expansion; I had no idea that brokers had established a trading intranet by the late 1960s. And that's the problem: we create perverse incentives to create promotional articles about my business (and WP:GNG breaks in the face of busy publicity departments) but we can't divert these editors towards writing actual informative articles about their product's general category and how it is supposed to work. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I recommend watching the actions of User:Omahacrab after the deletion of this article. They may try to re-make it, or use wikipedia for self-promotion. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend reading WP:AGF. This is a new article from a new editor. There is no reason to be unrolling the lynchin' rope quite so hastily. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming good faith doesn't mean we can't use our heads. All I'm recommending is that someone review this user's future edits. They've used Wikipedia for promotion in the past, and may do so again. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:Omahacrab's page is a copy of the Wikipedia article. Is this an appropriate user page? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that it is a good place to discuss this. You can start researching this issue from WP:UP#COPIES. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue isn't that it's copied, but that it is the same commercial advertising that's in the article. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, the main issue is that user behaviour is discussed in WP:AN/I and user pages' deletion in WP:MFD; and nothing about Omahacrab is supposed to be discussed here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
<Batman> It does suggest some conflict of interest. </Batman> And FWIW, I'd have no objection to userfying the article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Though it's likely the case, I don't see any relevance between the COI issue and deletion discussion. The COI issue is addressed by tagging with {{COI}}, which isn't the administrator action, and thus can be done out of AfD process. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Spotware_Systems_Ltd&oldid=1138785519"