Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canditv

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 keep. John254 16:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canditv

Non-notable "technology solution". Speedied several times, this time there is a claim of notability, but it appears to be false (see talk) Closedmouth (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Most of the information in the article at present can be verified. The contentious award wins which are discussed on the talk page have been removed. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 03:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Robbo = " What is the problem with the page can the delete noticed be taken off? It seems to comply, Im trying my best to edit it to wikipedia standards!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbo171 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Robbo the deletion notice will remain on the page for the next 5 or so days - allowing other members of the wikipedia community to comment on its inclusion. --VS ^talk 11:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - Thanks again!--Robbo171 (talk) 11:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep When I first saw this article, and noticed it had been speedied a few times, I thought to nominate it for deletion (either speedy or AfD). But the claims of awards made the subject seem notable. The one BCS award seems legitimate enough. I am concerned about the claims of awards (both by the article's author and by the company's website itself) that cannot be otherwise verified. This MAY just be a weakness in the Sentinel's reporting, or it may be a misunderstanding, but it may be deliberate misinformation. In any case, the use of a mobile phone to dial into a server to control the content of a public information display does seem fairly innovative, and I think the technology deserves its airing here in Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Winner of 2008 ICT Excellence Award as shown here [1]. Added and Referenced article. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 16:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It appears that the reference was present earlier in the article. However, I believe a tertiary or at least secondary reference was desired. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 16:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I believe they are two seperate awards. Am I mistaken? Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 17:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my poor phrasing. I meant in an earlier edition of article. See here. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 17:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It made me double and triple check. And there is nothing wrong with that :-). ShoesssS ^Talk 17:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No independent confirmation could be found for the ICT award. The citation provided here is from a company press release, but a search of the ICT site does NOT confirm the award. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go [2] sorry about the misunderstanding it just posted the other day. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 17:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The Sentinel article may have been based on the company's own press release. I am troubled by the fact that the ICT website does not list this company (nor even an award of the given name) on their website. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not troubled at this point, for a couple of reasons. The first, if the company made a false claim, and this would be a biggie, it would negatively affect the company both in reliability and most likely financially, and to be honest, I could not see this company doing that {at least personally). The second is that the awards are just coming out. I have seen it take months sometimes for organizations like this to post winners. Especially in lower profile categories. However, I have no problems waiting to post until you are 100% satisfied with RS. Likewise, I would hate to see the article deleted because Notability could not be established and this award could have swayed consensus that indeed it had been. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latest news' Further Google search has found that there are multiple groups handing out "ICT Excellence Awards". The award in question may well have been awarded by the West Midlands ICT Cluster who DO have a "Best Innovative Products" award, and who have not yet posted their winners from the November 2008 ceremony. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BINGO! - thats why I cant reference this one yet. So it would have to stay off until i could, if necessary----Robbo171 (talk) 09:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:21, 11 December 2008 (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.