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. Drmies (talk) 04:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectsoft[edit]

Intellectsoft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

WP:PUFFERY piece that, while appearing well sourced, is actually sourced to press releases and WP:SPS. No independent coverage can be found in any WP:RSes. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 00:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The #Services, #Technology Focus, #Efficiency and #Awards sections seem particularly evident of a failure of WP:NPOV and/or WP:SELFPROMOTE. —JmaJeremy ^talk _contribs 03:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—As the nominator said, the sources accompanying the statements are not reliable enough as they are self-published. The awards section needs to be improved in particular. Minima© (talk) 09:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not delete What exactly violates the rules of WP:NPOV and/or WP:SELFPROMOTE in the #Services, #Technology Focus, #Efficiency and #Awards sections?
  There are no words, "puff" sentences promoting the company in these sections. Only facts are presented there. As for the sources, there are no links to the company website in the sources, there are articles published not by the company, but by the websites upon their own will and initiative. The #Awards section does not contain promotion: Intellectsoft have won these awards and there is no harm in giving information about it. The references in this section are independent ratings, where Intellectsoft took part and was awarded. Minskdreamer (talk) 10:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC) — Minskdreamer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Comment it's very evident from the over exuberant arguing and single purpose editing that Minskdreamer has a conflict of interest. LibStar (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mentioned WP:SELFPROMOTE because it reads like an WP:ADVERT in that the first paragraph discusses things like the company's ISO certifications which seem to boost the image of the company, but don't really help give it context. Also, the fact that it even contains an Awards section seems like a violation of WP:NPOV considering I've looked at other technology company articles such as Microsoft and Facebook, both of which only mention in passing that the firms have won awards, and give a couple of examples. As mentioned in WP:IRS, there is a difference between truth and reliability. A lot of the references seem to be website designed by the industry to promote itself, and not actual reliable sources.
    Perhaps this company does deserve some mention in wikipedia, but this article is too biased as it is right now. —JmaJeremy ^talk _contribs 14:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minskdreamer, please read WP:SPS. A self-published source does not mean "a source published by the subject of the Wikipedia article". SPS means something that is published by the same person or organization who writes it. For example, I could start a new series of awards for outstanding Wikipedia articles, make some plaques, create a very professional looking website, and start issuing awards. These awards are not notable, and the website is the perfect example of a WP:SPS—the organization giving the award operate the website. A notable case would be if third-party sources write their own coverage of the awards. For example, the Academy Awards get coverage in hundreds of American (and international) press outlets. This makes them notable. If you can find third-party sources that mention this company, its awards or anything else about the company, then it will be notable. If you are trying to figure out if something is third-party, ask yourself if the publisher of the article is, in any way, related to anybody involved in the article. If they are fully independent, then they are third-party. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 14:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• JmaJeremy Why do you think ISO certifications boost the company’s image? In what way? They are mentioned to notify the reliability of the company and to show its status. Besides, it’s a just a fact, like the fact that company is headquartered in UK, London. It is not written in the article that Intellectsoft is the first or the only company with a certificate like this, it is not written that such certificate gives any advantages to the company. The Awards section is deleted, though I’d like to pay your attention to the fact that there are other articles on Wikipedia about companies featuring such section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SaM_Solutions, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBA_Group Minskdreamer (talk) 10:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, it is a great mistake to compare Intellectsoft with companies like Microsoft and Facebook, as it is clear from the given article that Intellectsoft despite of its achievements is not that prominent. Maybe it would be more reasonable to compare it with companies of the same level like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itransition, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBA_Group, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redwood_Technologies Why are these articles are not considered to be an advertisement or self-promotion? Minskdreamer (talk) 10:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• “A lot of the references seem to be website designed by the industry to promote itself, and not actual reliable sources.” Which references exactly? I don’t understand this. What websites are not reliable? All websites mentioned in references have no relations to Intellectsoft (i.e. exist independently and publish articles about anything they find interesting or important to write about), I checked this fact carefully. Please, provide the evidence proving I’m wrong. Minskdreamer (talk) 10:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I read WP:SPS and I understand what a self-published source means. I do not understand what does it have to do with the given article? What sources are self-published? Before writing the article I checked the info and references – all the mentioned websites do not relate to the company. Minskdreamer (talk) 10:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minskdreamer (talk • contribs) 10:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:B2B rationale. This article violates WP:NCORP so much, that it can be deleted right away per WP:SNOW. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• According to WP:NCORP sources used to support a claim of notability include independent, reliable publications in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations. Aren't these sources http://www.bestwebdesignagencies.com/rankings-of-best-iphone-development-companies and http://www.iphonefootprint.com/2011/03/the-best-top-10-iphone-app-developers/ good enough to support a claim of notability? These are independent ratings and they are mentioning Intellectsoft and its achievments. Minskdreamer (talk) 11:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Essentially, those websites are small, unknown and unregulated websites that are specifically made by people in the industry to promote the industry. A reliable source is a source that is independent, such as a widely-known newspaper, academic journal, broadcaster or government. Ipo.gov.uk could be a reliable source, but that particular page you linked to appears to be just an entry in a database, not an actual article, so it doesn't count. Generally speaking, in whatever source you use to establish notability, your company has to be discussed over at least one full paragraph, not just mentioned in passing. —JmaJeremy^TALK_CONTRIBS 18:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact that you don’t know these websites does not necessarily mean that they are unknown and unregulated. If you looked them through carefully you might have found out that Best Web Design Agencies is the independent authority on web design agencies and it is dedicated to finding the best agencies when being compared to all in order to give customers the best possible service available. iPhoneFootPrint also caters for the users’ needs, providing information on everything related to iPhone, as well as it makes independent ratings of best iPhone developers for iPhone users to choose the best developers and products. As for Ipo.gov.uk, it is the official government body responsible for granting Intellectual Property (IP) rights in the United Kingdom. Therefore they do not publish any articles about organizations, they only give patents. This source is used to notify the reliability of the company. There are sources in the article discussing the company over one full paragraph http://www.iphonerg.com/intellectsoft-recieves-top-iphone-developer-honors/ (I presume you won’t find it reliable and known enough), but what about this one http://www.cecileparkconferences.com/Mobile_Apps_Legal?page=3? Minskdreamer (talk) 10:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• And what about these articles Itransition, IBA Group, Redwood Technologies? Why they are not considered for deletion when my article is? Are some different criteria applied to them? And why are these SaM Solutions, IBA Group allowed to have the award section? You see, as a newcomer here and I seek examples in the existing articles. Minskdreamer (talk) 10:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately we can't nominate for deletion every non-notable topic at once. Though if you want to speed up the process, feel free to do it yourself. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• These articles have been on Wikipedia for quite a long time, therefore such attitude to my article seems a bit suspicious. No one has noticed Wikipedia rules’ violation in the abovementioned articles for months (though it seems to me the period is longer), but my article was nominated for deletion on the day it appeared. Seems strange, doesn’t it? I sincerely want to contribute to Wikipedia and I highly doubt that deletion is the best way to do this. All I want is a fair, non-subjective and equal approach to all articles on Wikipedia. The only reason I mentioned those articles is that before publishing mine I looked through already existing articles and took them as an example, did everything in the same way and for some reason I receive nomination for deletion. I have edited my article, by the way, but again I see no reaction to this. Minskdreamer (talk) 11:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't seem strange at all: new articles are patrolled, and this is how the nominator came across your article. Unfortunately sometimes patrolling editors don't pay enough attention, so the articles of the same quality as yours may exist for years. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Ok, I've edited this article. May it now remain on Wikipeadia or should I make more changes? What could be done to improve it? Minskdreamer (talk) 12:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Significant coverage in reliable sources showing the noticeable impact of this company on the history of software industry. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that those other non-notable companies are still on Wikipedia reflects the fact that we didn't used to be quite as strict, but in more recent times there are so many small technology businesses that the requirements for notability are harsher than for other companies. The fact is that most technology companies are run-of-the-mill. Many editors find that this essay is a good guideline on what type of technology companies are kept. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion to gain more publicity for your company--it is a place to document prominent companies that many people already know about. Sources such as the websites noted above are not considered reliable. A reliable source is an established newspaper like The New York Times or The Economist, an established magazine like Wired or a peer-reviewed journal article. When a company is discussed in one of these types of publications, we can be assured that there is something noteworthy about that company. As for relatively unknown blogs, for all we know they could be getting paid to write about the company, or they could even be partly owned by the company. Think of it this way. When I read the article, I think to myself "well,it's just another app developer, so what?" If one your apps became very famous (i.e. Angry Birds) or if you introduced some revolutionary new way of creating apps, then it might be notable, but as it stands, it's just another run-of-the-mill app developer. —JmaJeremy^TALK_CONTRIBS 21:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Another mobile phone software developer promoting itself on Wikipedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete while it doesn't necessarily seem unduly promotional, it doesn't appear notable either. WP:B2B is interesting reading, and while technically just an essay it does give a good overview of how this material and Wikipedia intersect. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with some substantial editing to reduce promotionalism. The personal essay WP:B2B is, fortunately not a guideline; the material presented there would lead me to the exactly opposite conclusion, that a company making a significant product is likely to be notable, or, in my personal opinion, is actually notable. That a product is widely adopted within its sphere even for a time is notability . DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure B2B may not be a guideline, but ultimately, wikipedia is not a WP:BUREAUCRACY and we make decisions based on consensus. It seems to me like the general consensus is reflected by B2B, and many editors here are casting their !vote on some related basis. Ultimately, Intellectsoft is only an online software company, and doesn't have any software that could be considered notable. It's not an attack on the company itself, I'm sure it's a great company and they deserved every one of those awards, but that doesn't make them encyclopedic. —JmaJeremy^TALK_CONTRIBS 03:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Criteria upon which an article may be called encyclopedic are rather vague and subjective. You see, to my mind, this article is of a great use for Wikipedia visitors, as Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia and Intellectsoft is an international company providing development services worldwide. And these days the technologies, internet and mobile phones are an integral and indispensible part of our lives whether we want it or not. Minskdreamer (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:B2B is a rationale, which is entirely based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines and it does a good job of explaining the application of WP:NCORP and WP:NSOFT in the area of its scope. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• JmaJeremy you do seem way to harsh like you actually do not like the particular company or have something against the industry on the whole. As for run-of-the-mill it is an Essay and not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. It is quite subjective just as you are about companies that are worth mentioning on Wikipedia. Moreover run-of-the-mill is increasing subjectivity in notability discussions – WP:N is very clear that notability is not about importance, and it does not mention anything about uniqueness. Wikipedia is not some Guiness Book of Records it is an encyclopedia. If in the book of records publications are supposed to be exceptional and sensational, the encyclopedia may actually cover the so-called run-of-the-mill. Besides, as one user correctly said: “Wikipedia is not paper and so the practical constraints upon the inclusion of topics is boundless. Google and other services show us that it possible to have coverage of every street, every book, every web page, etc.” (you can read more interesting points on the matter here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Run-of-the-mill). I do not mean that since there is enough space for anything, any kind of info (even useless one) should be posted on Wikipedia. But you shouldn’t be too strict to articles. Intellectsoft is surely pale in comparison to Facebook or Microsoft and it did not develop Angry Birds, but this company is worth mentioning too; and Wired, The New York Times or The Economist are not the only reliable sources. Yes, Intellectsoft does not have publications in the abovementioned sources, but is it the reason for deletion? Do you know any other ways of improvement besides deletion? Haven’t you heard about editing? Your messages (especially the recent ones) do look like an attack on the company. “Ultimately, Intellectsoft is only an online software company, and doesn't have any software that could be considered notable.” – what do you call it? Does it look like an impartial point of view? Minskdreamer (talk) 11:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I do agree with Dmitrij D. Czarkoff that significant coverage in reliable sources is essential and I will provide it, but I absolutely disagree with the statement of JmaJeremy that Intellectsoft is only an online software company without any achievements and notable products. It is an international Company with offices in the UK, the USA, Germany, Norway; with more than 100 completed projects in various spheres and industries, working with Universal Pictures, Diageo, Panasonic and other prominent companies. I did not add this info to the article only because I do not want to promote the company, I only feel like it deserves to be included in to Wikipedia. Minskdreamer (talk) 11:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The references provided aren't sufficient to pass WP:CORP as they are either not independent e.g. a press release or not in depth e.g. [1]. I have searched for more sources, but at this time, they do not seem to exist. SmartSE (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• According to WP:CORP depth of coverage does matter a lot, but if the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple ^[1] independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Multiple independent sources used in the article: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/t-find-number?detailsrequested=C&trademark=2531118, http://www.cecileparkconferences.com/Mobile_Apps_Legal?page=3, http://www.androidpit.com/en/android/market/apps/list/owner/%22Intellectsoft%20Ltd%22, http://www.crocodilekeyboards.com/, http://www.cem.brighton.ac.uk/staff/mw159/ In total, all these sources provide enough information and prove company’s notability.

Why are the given sources reliable? Because according to WP:CORP: Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as:

1. sources that simply report meeting times, shopping hours or event schedules,
2. the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories,
3. inclusion in lists of similar organizations,
4. the season schedule or final score from sporting events,
5. routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel,
6. brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business,
7. simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued,
8. routine notices of facility openings or closings (e.g., closure for a holiday or the end of the regular season),
9. routine notices of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops,
10. routine restaurant reviews,
11. quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, or
12. passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization.

The sources provided in this article do not correspond to any of the abovementioned points (1-12) describing unreliable sources. Thus the given sources are reliable. Minskdreamer (talk) 09:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources: (1) directory entry (lacks depth), (2) about a person, only trivial mention of company, (3) directory entry of products, company only named, (4) trivial mention and (5) doesn't even mention the company at all. Summary: none of these sources support keep vote. – Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Request for closure: after 12 days of this AfD the discussion grew longer but standings didn't change much: 7 editors advocating for deletion (including nominator) and 2 users opposing (including author of the article). This seems to be a sitution of clear consensus towards deletion. – Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Why delete when edition and improvement is possible? Within these 12 days I've edited the article trying to make it meet the standards of Wikipedia, I took into consideration all the remarks. Why cannot this article stay on Wikipedia under the condition that it will be improved? Afterall, in the course of this discussion it was clarified that this article is not an ad or promotion, the only problem with this article is that it lacks coverage (or the depth of coverage, to be more exact) in reliable sources. This article may be marked as not meeting Wikipedia's general notability guideline in order to give some time for sufficiant coverge search. Minskdreamer (talk) 13:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, but no amount of improvement could change the fact that the company is just not notable. If this changes and the company gets some indisputable notoriety in the future, then I would encourage you to create a new article at that time. —JmaJeremy^TALK_CONTRIBS 13:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• strong delete Minskdreamer (talk · contribs) has a serious conflict of interest. He uses WP:BLUDGEON which further emphasises vested interest. Notability has not been established to meet WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems like I am being picked on. According to WP:BLUDGEON Bludgeoning the process is where someone attempts to force their point of view by sheer volume of comments or repetition of an activity beyond the limits of good faith. I am not writing puff, over-emotional comments to make the volume. I am just trying to express my point of view and I refer to existing Wikipedia rules. Is it prohibited here? Minskdreamer (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• It is not the matter of conflict of interest, it is the matter of my time spent on editing and creating this article. Is it mentioned anywhere that I have any relation to the given company? I have written this article as I think that it belongs here, I've spent my time and surely I do not want this article to be deleted - it's not the conflict of interest, it's common sense. Minskdreamer (talk) 14:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you've only edited one article in your time on Wikipedia. Classic sign of conflict of interest. Im guessing you have a connection to the company in question,See WP:SPA. I only hope you stop giving long winded replies and accept consensus that this article won't last. LibStar (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, yes, it's my first article. There will be more to come in the future. It is not single-purpose registration. I always stick to my guns, when I know I'm right and there's nothing wrong about it. Minskdreamer (talk) 15:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sticking to guns doesn't make this notable. Do you have any connection to this company, or perhaps know someone who works there? LibStar (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know the company and find it to be good enough to be listed on Wikipedea. That's it. Please, stop criticising me in person, calling my arguments "winded". My position is clear and reasoned. I do have rights to defend my point of view. Minskdreamer (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NCORP. As for the above conflict, 2 things. 1) LibStar, stop biting the newcomer. 2) Minskdreamer, you don't have to respond to everything, and you shouldn't take it personally when your article is criticized; no one is suggesting you did bad work in writing the article, just that you picked a not-deserving-enough topic to "stick to your guns" about. Beware getting into a battleground mentality. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:08, 20 March 2012 (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.