Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blogtronix (2nd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 keep. Despite concerns about the notability of the company, and the involevment in the creation of the article by people involved with the company, the article does have topic specific sources which write at length about the company. The company exists, and the article meets the requirements of WP:COMPANY. Concerns about the quality of the material in the article should now be addressed by editing and improving the article. SilkTork *YES! 12:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blogtronix

edit
AfDs for this article:
Blogtronix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotion for non-notable company. Article has been deleted five times before, and this iteration is written by an employee of the company who is a single-purpose account. Given references are mostly incidental mentions, no mentions at all, or narrow trade rags. I have been unable to find significant third-party coverage. Haakon (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. I am not a blogtronix employee 2. References are not incidental, and all references are relevant. 3. corporation is just as notable as other producers of collaboration software which are listed in encyclopedia, many of which have far fewer references than this article. (Jive Software, Socialtext, Thoughtfarmer) 4. other editors have acknowledged that my article is significantly different than previous versions, with which i was not affiliated. several editors have deemed the article acceptable, why should Haakon take exception? 5. I am not a single-purpose user, this is merely my first project. I plan to continue to contribute to the encyclopedia in whatever areas I see a need. Elimccargar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

If you are not an employee, then by some strange coincidence there is a Twitter user that has the same username as you and posted about working there. If that is a coincidence, then I must apologise for the mistake. Haakon (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Haakon's sleuthing. WP is not a tool for marketing and promotion.Nefariousski (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i am independent contractor/student intern, i do stuff for a couple companies, but if u consider that sufficient conflict of interest, so be it. but please do not delete the article. if you look at the article and only consider its language, references, and notability, i think you will see that it merits inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elimccargar (talk • contribs) 23:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, sources not sufficient to establish notability. - MrOllie (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 17:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Despite his unwillingness to admit his (alleged) connections to the company, Elimccargar should not be villified simply because of such connections. Please don't forget to Assume Good Faith unless otherwise indicated. From the very first revision of this resurrected article, it seems to have been written in a neutral style, with no overly-promotional statements and with facts backed up with references. (I have written on the article's talk page that I believe the {{advert}} template should be removed for this reason.) I believe any calm, neutral person could believe that Elimccargar is just writing on a topic he knows about, that he believes is notable. Questioning his motives is inappropriate. Nonetheless I vote to delete the article...the sources it references simply do not establish it as being notable enough to deserve an article here. When usage picks up and significant, large sites are running on this software, it may then be notable enough, but in the current time it is not. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 08:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have addressed the advert issue (IMO) and removed it. You're right that it may qualify for an article in the future, but that will be on the basis of significant coverage, not on increases in popularity. It seems like it's already a widely deployed product, but has not garnered much press attention yet. Haakon (talk) 08:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that in terms of software bloggers and "industry rags" are the most important measure of notability. This software powers several immense communities in several countries, and the sources reflect that. 74.211.199.50 (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC) — 74.211.199.50 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment The question of the motives of any editor is not relevant to a deletion discussion. If Elimccargar has a COI then his edits should be checked carefully, but valid contributions are fine. If an article is "promotional" then it can be edited to change the style to neutral. The current article seems neutral in tone, it is only promotional insofar as it is about a non-notable firm. That brings us to notability, which is really the only issue here. I haven't reveiwed the existing sources nor searched for possible additional sources enough to have an opinion on that score yet, but I do think with this sort of software demonstrations from multiple independent sources that the software is in fact in wide use even if not widely written about should sometimes be accepted in lieu of more traditional indicators of notability, and that in such cases widespread appearances in forum and blog pots can be relevant, even though those are not normally considered reliable sources. DES (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    lets look at the references provided or some of them:
    • [1] looks like a WP:RS to me. It is in blog form but appears to be by the organization staff, not an outside unvetted contributor. WP:RS says "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." I think this is a case in point. DES (talk) 02:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • [2] seems to be an RS by the same rules, indeed it looks rather more reliable to me. DES (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • [3] is clearly reliable, but only a passing mention.
    • [4] seems to fall into the 'written by a professional" category of RS.
    • It is unfortunate that the Gartner reports lead to a page behind a login.
    • The Red herring top 100 list looks signifiocant to me.
    • [5] looks like a RS to me.
    Strong keep after looking at the refs in some detail. DES (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Haakon. This is a fairly clear cut case of promotion, and it disgusts me a bit that the person responsible is trying to hide that fact. JBsupreme (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Blogtronix_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1091561418"