- 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. Spartaz Humbug! 20:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
EnterMedia, Inc.
- EnterMedia, Inc. ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Virtually no independent coverage, highly promotional and fails GNG. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I do not believe the article to be promotional at all. All sources are external with years of existence. I have made sure to edit the wording in a way that has no promotional value. I have tagged myself according to Wikipedia's policy.
Brandfolder and dropbox (service) are competitors and there article is much more promotional. They even list features of the product. Entermedia Inc only mentions how it works not why you should buy it. Please let me know, where is the promotional material inserted before deleting? Please, I have spent hours upon hours on this to create it clean and un-promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcambron ( talk • contribs) 15:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- Jcambron See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 16:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 16:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 16:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I understand and just used the other companies as an example. If we focus on just the content on
Entermedia, Inc. you will see that there is criticism as well as one positive reception of the product, which is the only part of the article that seems promotional, if-that. Of course this can be deleted to comply with Wikipedia's terms and conditions. The references are external and have existed for years, nothing is new. Please help me understand and edit the article to make it encyclopedic. Thank you for your time and suggestions. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Jcambron (
talk •
contribs) 15:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- Comment An article about the same topic EnterMedia DB (service) was speedily deleted on 2018-04-05 under criterion G11( Unambiguous advertising or promotion). The relevant policy for promotion (not allowed) is Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion. If we decide that the article is not promotional, or that the promotional tone can be fixed, the notability guidelines for businesses is applicable. The article would then need to meet the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Vexations ( talk) 19:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I'm struggling to find a reason not to vote delete, the article creator hasn't demonstrated the subject is notable with WP:RS. Szzuk ( talk) 15:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. I'm all for open source, but the bottom line is the references in the article don't come close to meeting WP:CORP, and nothing better has been presented in this AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- 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.