Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cashflow INSITE

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. The article looks like advertising and there is no real evidence of notability Fences&Windows 21:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cashflow INSITE

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In my opinion, this article should be deleted as it fails to meet Wikipedia's notability standard for companies and organizations, WP:COMPANY. According to WP:COMPANY, "a company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject.". Now, this article currently has three references and two external links. Of these, two of the references and one of the external links lead to one of the pages of the company's website, which is certainly not a reliable secondary source. However, The third reference is an online newspaper article, which does appear to be a reliable source, but Cashflow INSITE is only briefly mentioned, as it occupies only about a quarter of the article. Meanwhile, the second external link leads to an online blog archive, which does not appear to be reliable or acceptable, per WP:SPS. So, only one of five references and external links is a reliable, second-party source. Therefore, this article does not meet WP:COMPANY, as it has not "been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources". Thus, this article should be deleted. Laurinavicius (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominator. Laurinavicius (talk) 00:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has one decent ref, but still lacks notability, and is spam. Angryapathy (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The coverage by Investment News at http://www.investmentnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090612/REG/906129961/1097/INDAILYOPINION is enough to establish notability. It is reasonably in-depth and counts as more than a brief or passing mention. A reference need not deal primarily with the topic under discussion to be a valid one. The intention behind the "passing mention" reference in WP:NOTE is to exclude the yellow pages as a reference, not to exclude this sort of reference. - Eastmain (talk) 14:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable web content or software, and unambiguous advertising including ""solution"-speak: the only personal financial management (budgeting) solution that offers client-advisor collaboration. Unambiguous advertising is a criterion for speedy deletion without further need for debate, and is so for a reason; but the Investment News website, even if it were widely read, would appear to be chiefly about other products and businesses. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very marketroid and fails the plural sources part of the GNG. --Cybercobra (talk) 15:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even so much as a claim of notability, much less one backed up by reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And its Spam Delete and WP:SALT --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 17:34, 24 November 2009 (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.