Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marketcetera

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. Secret ^account 14:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marketcetera

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

A nonnotable business software company - Altenmann >t 01:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is some promotional tone in the lead of the article, but unless the nominator provides further explanation, I don't see how this is non-notable. It has been covered by 6 reliable sources (of course, excluding the official company homepage), at least one of which is VERY reliable. That clearly meets WP:GNG. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And what notable facts are described in the sources besides "business as usual"? - Altenmann >t 16:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete - no facts mentioned which speak of notability. Moreover, the NYT bit says "Marketcetera has just four customers right now" - a promotional piece about a startup which much hype about opportunities, but nothing about achievements. Mukadderat (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Just four customers" isn't necessarily a bad thing. have you considered who those customers might be? There's a whole gamut from 4 random family members to Google, Microsoft, etc. Where those customers lie on that scale clearly makes a difference as to how important that bit you mentioned actually is. Also, if they can survive on four customers, it's clearly a bad reason to use it as a put down. And finally, why did you focus on just NYT when there are 5 other sources for the article too? - Mgm|^(talk) 13:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And have you considered that if Google were customer, it would have been mentioned at least three times in every their advert? I don't have to focus on anything: my focus is on the wikipedia article, which declares no nonability whatsoever. Mukadderat (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the partnership with NYSE Euronext's technologies division. Can you get a much better partnership than that in the development of financial technologies? Wikiphile1603 (talk) 20:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am the user who originally created this article. I did not create it for any commercial reason and I have no COI; I created it because I had heard about it and thought it was a notable project/company. I had meant to develop it further, and I hope that it will be developed further by other users. That said, perhaps it is better short and snappy, I don't know. Note that with regards to a low number of 'customers', please remember that if the project were completely non-commercial — i.e. no support contracts etc. — then it could still be notable and have zero 'customers'. Remember also (as mentioned) that the 'customers' are not just your average users — they are financial companies, and the contracts are likely to be of very high value. The software has far more downloads — and thus users — than it has 'customers'. Regarding the tone, I have re-read it and don't personally feel it reads promotionally, but please give more details if anyone thinks this is a significant issue. Wikiphile1603 (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete Neither the article, nor the keep-voters provide any arguments what this company is better than any of multinumerous startup which pop up and then pop. Not a sinlge recognized achievement mentioned. Twri (talk) 02:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...apart from the notable coverage from places like the NY Times... and Reuters... and a partnership with NYSE Euronext... This is not possible for just a random 'mulinumerous startup'. Wikiphile1603 (talk) 20:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Every startup has lots of spin. - Altenmann >t 21:35, 14 December 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.