| Revision as of 14:23, 20 January 2006 editInkSplotch (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users821 edits →[]← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:26, 20 January 2006 edit undoInkSplotch (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users821 edits →[]Next edit → | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
| *'''Keep''' no reason not to -] ] 14:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' no reason not to -] ] 14:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''', per Doc, because he's my first edit conflict :) ]<sup>(])</sup> 14:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC) | *'''Keep''', per Doc, because he's my first edit conflict :) ]<sup>(])</sup> 14:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
| **And because I don't think ] == Popular. ]<sup>(])</sup> 14:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:26, 20 January 2006
Tally Solutions Ltd
Bangalore-based Accounting software company that is one of two or three giants, and probably the leader of those, in its home market. Numbers among its customers half a dozen illustrious names including two auto companies, the Reserve Bank of India, and the Indian software giant Infosys. Fairly well known in the UK market, also sells into the Middle East and Far East.
I undeleted this a couple of days ago after what I regarded as an inadequate AfD: Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Tally_(accounting). The reason to delete was that it looked like an ad and the company had less than 500 google hits. Well that's silly but the article did need overhauling, which I've done.
I'm relisting this because there seems to be some concern about my unusual action in resurrecting a deleted article.
- Obviously keep. We don't delete articles about this kind of company without a very good reason. Misplaced Pages isn't some silly bloody game, it's an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per above. KrazyCaley 03:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Tony Sidaway, though the article could some more editing/NPOV. —Quarl 2006-01-20 03:56Z
- Delete as not encyclopedic. Article did get a nice couple of paragraphs in an eleven page article in Wired ten years ago... but anything else? I'm not seeing evidence that is satisfies WP:CORP, and the use of the words "The company claims to have..." are sending up some serious WP:V warning flags to me. - brenneman 05:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: maybe you should check out the definition of encyclopedic, since I suspect that you are confusing it with the oft-misued term notable. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- They won the PCQuest User's Choice award for Accounting software ten years in succession. I think they won the 2004 award, too, making it eleven. You're just going to have to accept that this is a really major company in its home market, Aaron. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comments like that make it appear that this is about something personal to you, Tony. Unbecoming.
brenneman 07:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC) - Sniping like that makes it clear that it's something personal to you. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comments like that make it appear that this is about something personal to you, Tony. Unbecoming.
- Keep but expand soon.--MONGO 06:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Easily important enough to keep. Choalbaton 08:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: even I've heard of this one. Why do I get the impression that some people like using {{afd}} rather than {{cleanup}} and {{npov}}? —Phil | Talk 09:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep no reason not to -Doc 14:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, per Doc, because he's my first edit conflict :) InkSplotch 14:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- And because I don't think WP:N == Popular. InkSplotch 14:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)