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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tallyfy[edit]

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

My extensive PROD removed by someone who is either involved with the company or an employee (especially considering the IP geolocates to the company's location), because they not only said WP: OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but they then said both "there's sources" and then the claims that I must be a company competitor; I still confirm everything from my PROD because everything in fact is still PR, both sources and information. SwisterTwister talk 15:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep I am a company rep and here's my case - which I consider valid. If you are going to delete this - are you also going to delete every other vendor in this category? Take a look at Kissflow for example - why does that exist? It follows that every other vendor with a few citations should be deleted too. It's unexplained that referencing an article with a range of citations is now called a REFBOMB - isn't that the point of Wikipedia and notability? I can provide a ton of other examples that merit deletion if this is the argument being made. Granted, as a company employee I may seem biased to you - but there's no argument to be made if the only reasoning here is that theres "too many references" - especially as multiple Wikipedia editors went through submission and cleanup. There is no justification for the vague notion of "corporate depth" either - because by that token - hundreds of pages of vendors in this and other categories would require deletion. - 12:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.210.78 (talk) . Update - a further comment - upon further reflection - these actions seems extreme and targeted at any person or page that seemingly looks like a small business. You need to make edits based on content not on making judgements about people from an armchair. All citations here are strong and reflect real notability. Please present a precise case why specific citations are not. I especially deplore the statement below about the "REFBOMB" - this is a ridiculous, sweeping statement to make without any detail or justification. Why don't we just call all Wikipedia article REFBOMBs? Is that fair?

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 15:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete that's a great REFBOMB but I'm unconvinced any of it has WP:CORPDEPTH - David Gerard (talk) 09:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete Another Corporate SPAM Wikipedia facing these days in abundance! Delete as the "Keep" comment has made. Only promotions, The Blatant Kind. Light2021 (talk) 14:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--- Comment - Really? Why does a properly cited article suddenly become a "blatant kind" of promotion. Please name one citation that's out of place here. Instead of making a sweeping statement with no evidence - present a real case about why this article should not exist - while a range of others should. None of the "delete" statements here have noted anything specific except for a witchhunt with no evidence. Are you going to delete every company on Wikipedia? If not - why not?

Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly advertising. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:55, 16 October 2016 (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.