Riskturk was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete the article.
Advertising. I've also reverted half a dozen pages back on subjects such as Legal risk, Standard deviation, Value at risk etc to remove references to this company's website by the author of this page. DomCleal 18:19, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Smerdis of Tlön 20:04, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Weak delete in its current state, but since its based in Turkey, it could have alot of web hits in other languages. If someone writes a verifiable encyclopedic article i might vote to keep. —siroχo
- Can't see why we should keep this unless someone makes a convincing argument. There are not many google hits across all languages. Weak delete. zoney ♣ talk 23:34, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: We have had entries like this before. One was for the leading, absolutely the leading, company making gas flow meters for a particular industrial application, but that was it. Being #1 in your field is part of being notable, but being #1 in a sector of a sub-industry is probably too low. In this case, we have risk-analysis > software > Turkish, and that's too far down the taxonomic tree for me, even if they were the #1 company of that sort. No such notability exists. Geogre 01:35, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Well in fairness, for all we know, half of Turkey could be paying money to them. Or not. I'm happy to delete unless someone makes a convincing case, but it should be pointed out that one can't be absolutely certain that it is a nothing company (unless you have further information that we don't have). zoney ♣ talk 11:00, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oh, no. Quite. Nor have I claimed that this is a minor company in Turkey. I have judged solely by what the article has given us, and the article has merely said that it's a "leading" (but not #1) company within the confines of Turkey. We don't prove a negative, after all. While VfD voters often go out and do research on listed articles to see if more can be made of them, and while this is a very good thing that earns time off from WikiPurgatory, I advocate voting on articles rather than topics. I would vote to delete a trash article on Apollo 11, if no one cleaned it up (i.e. I would vote "delete unless expanded" or "send to clean up"), or I'd go start expanding it myself. In this particular case, we have an unverifiable topic, so not only do we not have to research it further, but we actually can't. Geogre 20:50, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.