Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ETouch Systems
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The result was keep, probably also could have been speedy withdrawn after nominator changed to keep. However, concensus exists to keep it, so that's how the record will stand. Daniel.Bryant 05:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reason This is a notable company, but some other editors think the article seems to be an advertisement. I am taking the article here for a community decision. The article needs to be improved, but perhaps someone with specialist knowledge can do a better job than I can of expanding the article. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Article has references, and the company seems notable. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep but the article could use more sources -- is this all there is? --Dhartung | Talk 05:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Week keep per Dhartung. — Gary Kirk // talk! 08:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable, negligible content Michael K. Edwards 12:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems to be a notable company with a big-name client list. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless seriously improved for informative, encyclopedic style in plain English as opposed to its current state of vacuous prose:
- . . . has developed proprietary social computing technologies including an enterprise wiki solution . . .
- eTouch has leveraged its experience . . .
- The company probably is notable and deserves an article. But this rubbish is intolerable. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Close; nominator !voted keep. ergot 14:44, 19 October 2006 (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.