This page is not unambiguously promotional, because
- I'm not affiliated with this company in any way. I'm simply writing about regional business and non-profit entities.
- The article is based exclusively on credible sources. No information was taken from the company's websites.
- Alongside positive information, the article includes negative or questionable information (changes in the business model, failure to raise planned amounts of money, difficulties with selling Finagraph to financial institutions.) --凰兰时罗 (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
- It still reads like a snecking advert, and I'm replacing the speedy. The @credible sources are largely self-published. If not spam, I doubt the notability of this dull-sounding companyTheLongTone (talk) 15:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
- I do not understand what warrants your actions.
- Let's first deal with notability.
- First of all, if you doubt notability, it doesn't justify speedy deletion.
- Per WP:ORG, the key criterion is "the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product." As you can see, a number of prominent regional sources has covered the organization in detail, and the organization is mentioned in a number of non-regional sources. This family of sources permits to describe the company, its history, and its products solely based on 3rd party credible sources. So what's the problem?
- Now, let's deal with advertising aspect of it.
- First of all, why are you dismissing my arguments without addressing them? Simply stating that 'my case is weak' does not lead to a constructive discussion.
- I read and re-read WP:SPAM. I do not believe that this article is in violation of it, at least it is not obvious. So, let's work together on changing the articles verbiage to distance it from advertising. You'd have to explain yourself more. This is more constructive than your suggestion simply to destroy several hours of work.
- Please compare this article to any other article about a business entity. (For example, browse through companies in Category:Technology companies established in 2011. Note that all these articles are of the same tone and structure; moreover, most of them are not as well 'sourced' as Booyami.) So, why did you single out one of my articles?
- Now, let's address the issue of sources. I don't understand why you stated that the sources are 'largely self-published'. There are mostly 3rd party sources in the article, plus there is a couple of interviews with the owners published in respectable business news sources. Even these interviews are admissible, because the news source adds credibility. (as per "The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings") Look, many of the sources used have their own Wikipedia articles, including GeekWire, Puget Sound Business Journal, Forbes, Bloomberg, Intuit, Inc. (magazine), etc. Some don't, but they are still reliable sources: (Seattle Business Monthly, Credit Union Times, etc.). Where do you see self-publication?
- 凰兰时罗 (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
