Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goss Interactive

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. slakr^\ talk / 01:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Goss Interactive

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

Previously PRODded twice and deleted twice. Recreated a third time. Examination of the sources shows that this company does not meet WP:CORP and WP:SIGCOV criteria for inclusion. Trivial mentions, primary sources, blogs, press releases, etc., do not amount to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have reviewed the claims and references and amended where neccessary. The claims the company makes about it's products have been removed to make it more fact based.User:Prettyblossom —Preceding undated comment added 16:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Good effort, but there's still the issues of WP:CORP criteria for inclusion as well as the existence of this article for promotional purposes. The claims a company makes are completely irrelevant to this discussion. Note that I was going to speedy-delete and salt this article under CSD:G11 but decided to go the AfD route on the small chance that some significant, independent, reliable secondary source coverage can be found to rescue it. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Independent reliable souces are referenced including SOCITM, Guardian and RealStoryGroup (previously CMS Watch) who also conduct independent reviews of the product, I have added this review to the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamma duck (talk • contribs) 14:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC) — Mamma duck (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

As stated in the nomination, trivial mentions in otherwise independent reliable sources don't meet WP:SIGCOV. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Also unambiguous advertising, full of vague and meanibngless peacock claims for yet another company that supplies and delivers online efficiency savings, digital marketing and a Content Management System. This version has user friendly WYSIWYG controls that empower an unlimited number of non-technical individuals, groups and departments to effortlessly manage and deliver content to Web 2.0 websites, portals, intranets and extranets in a secure and flexible environment.....supports best practice when building websites, and aims to deliver websites to the highest accessibility standards. -50 notability points for "Web 2.0" and -50 for "best practice". - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 26 May 2011 (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.