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 Deville (Talk) 15:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blogtronix[edit]

Around 200 unique Googles, every instance of the name Blogtronix is weblinked, release 1.0 in August, no external sources, no evidence of meeting WP:SOFTWARE or WP:CORP. Article is the work of GeorgeAthannassov (talk · contribs), a person of that (unusual) name is the COO of Blogtronix. User's contributions are restricted to adding and puffing Blogtronix. Pretty fair evidence of meeting WP:SPAM. Just zis Guy you know? 19:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Question and remark from George,

  What do I need to change so the Blogtronix article and company info stays in Wikipedia structure. We are a legidimate coprorate structure in US. If the weblinkage is a problem - I would immeaditely remove it

• George: I did put the article. I removed the web links to Blogtronix website.
  • You need to include verifiable references to non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources, supporting the criteria listed at WP:CORP and WP:SOFTWARE (inclusion guidelines). Just zis Guy you know? 19:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• George: Thank you for the remarks. Can we consider these as references:
  • Ernst & Young - VP of Internal Communications - Rod Boothby
  • http://www.innovationcreators.com/2006/04/blogtronix_is_web_office_techn.html
  • http://www.enterpriseweb2.com/?p=67 - Jerry Bowles
  • And Robert Scoble, Ex-Microsoft Chief Blogger and now PodTech VP:
  • http://scobleizer.wordpress.com/2005/10/31/i-totally-screwed-up-on-post-about-blogtronix/
  • http://scobleizer.wordpress.com/2006/04/27/another-test-of-is-microsoft-listening/
• George again: another article mentioning Blogtronix in BusinessWeek:
  • http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jul2006/tc20060718_932217.htm
• Delete per nom. Still spam--Anthony.bradbury 20:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• From George: Anthony, please indicate what I need to change so it is not considered as a spam. What is it different than the article for Movable Type? open the movable type article and tell me what is different! I will chaneg what I have to to have Blogtronix included in Wikipedia but you guys are not helping here, I know you are editors, not support center but the guidlines are not clear what i need to remove especially when I have the example with Movable type. They are in the same position we are in!
• George: I edited the article additionaly - please check and advise.
  • Honestly speaking: There is no hope for your article at this point. It will be deleted. Change your company and your software first, before considering whether they deserve a Wikipedia article. Get mentioned on Forbes 500, become a Dow Jones companent stock, and get your software featured (not just mentioned in passing) in 5 newspapers first, and we might reconsider. Nothing's wrong with the article, it's the company (and the software) that isn't notable enough for an article at this stage. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 20:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; blatant vanispamcruftisement. Ryūlóng 20:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• George: What is "blatant" here? Does this mean you have double standards? Movable type can be included together with SixApart and Blogtronix can not. What is different in the two articles - none of the editors here can not point out. Did you check the latest update I just did? Compare it wtih Movable type and tell me where is the difference
  • Comment As it stands, this article is an advertisement, not an encyclopedia article. To have a shot at being kept, you'd have to rewrite it to be an objective analysis of the company. As it stands, my vote will be Delete. Danny Lilithborne 20:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• George: OK, I Understand. Thank you. I will take out some of the information that can be considered as an advertisement immediately.
• George: I changed the article again. Danny, can you check it again. Awyong Jeffrey - I think your statement is a little incorrect. Being first in more than one aspects should allow us to be included in Wikipedia. Plus we do have way more than 5 articles about us in newspapers. We can not become Forbes or Fortune 500 company in 18 months but we are aiming there. There is nothing wrong with our software or company type - you do not know the Corporate Blogging software industry to state that We can not be included because we are nobody. I am honestly seeking advise how we can be inclued in wikipedia,i am not arguing with the editors. I need advise what to do as I am certain my opinion is valid as well as the infromation for Blogtronix which should reside in Wikipedia
• another comment - TechCrunch http://www.techcrunch.com/2005/08/18/profile-blogtronix/ Plus the google results are over 162,000 !
• Another one - Blogtronix is BlogOn Social Media Innovator: http://www.blogonevent.com/blogon2005/exhibitors/
• The Latest Conference Office 2.0 Blogtronix is Key speaker company and Sponsor http://www.office20con.com/sponsors.html http://www.office20con.com/speakers.html
• This is Vassil Mladjov,Vassil mladjov founder and ceo of Blogtronix. One thing I don't understand here is what are you guys talking about. Blogtronix is a company incorporated in the US, CA in Aug 2005. We just like, SocialText, SixApart, WordPress, JotSpot and many others make web 2.0 software and services. Why are any of our competitors here in Wikipedia and we can't be here? You guys have many articles about software companies for wikis and blogging Blog software, we are just one of these companies. Category:Proprietary wiki software

  So, if any of these companies are here, I do think that we should be here well. We will edit the info to a minimum, so it does not look like any commercial ad, but people are looking for us on the internet as our solutions is a best of breed for enterprises at the moment. (these are just not my words).

  Furthermore, according to your guidelines WP:SOFTWARE about software, it states that: "Creating an article about software you have personally developed is strongly discouraged but not forbidden"

  More references about Blogtronix: Forrester Research http://www.forrester.com Official Corporate Blogging Reasearch papers by Forrester Research — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vassko (talk • contribs) 2006-08-28 01:32:43

  • Wikipedia is not a business directory for everyone, you and your competitors, to get a listing in, or for "people looking for us on the Internet" to look you up in. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. If you want a directory for people to look you up in, get thee to Yellowikis! Our goal here is to write an encyclopaedia. We only retain articles on companies that satisfy certain criteria. If you want to have an article on a company, you must cite sources to show that it satisfies those criteria. You haven't cited a single non-trivial article, from a reliable source, about the company that isn't a straight rehash of a press release or corporate autobiography. Some of the web pages don't even mention the company at all. Uncle G 02:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George: Thank you Uncle G. I guess, we will get back to Wikipedia in a couple of months. BTW; All sites that are posted here have our company name on them and believe me the Report on Corporate Blogging from Forrester Research is quite non-trivial, reliable and independent source. There should not be a reason for Wikipedia editors to deal with our inclusion in such a manner when SixApart, iUpload, WordPress and JotSpot are listed here. Anyway - we will wait and will deal with this at a later date. I read very carefully what should be a reliable source and besides the fact that Mars is a planet and the Wikipedia editors have a DELETE button - i could not get any other or more information. I will really get back to wikipedia when the content we can put about Blogtornix is verifiable and understandable enough for the very general public that needs to be told that Mars is not only a chocolate bar but it is actually a planet!

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.