- 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. Black Kite (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Data Expedition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am the original author of the article and a principal of the subject company. I would like to better understand the procedures and criteria involved in this process. I have read AfD, DELPRO, and Notability and respect the basic principles and necessity of these criteria. I am trying to understand exactly where the line is drawn.
- With respect to the general notability guidelines, the company is the primary subject of several referenced articles in independent publications. In addition, this more recent publication makes significant mention.
- It appears that people do regularly search for "Data Expedition" on Wikipedia, so I believe the article is of interest, but I am unsure of whether that is a useful criteria. I believe the subject is at least as notable as many other software companies which are currently listed in Wikipedia and that the article demonstrates that notability better than most others listed in list of Software-related deletion discussions. But again I am unsure of whether such a comparison is useful.
- What changes or evidence might allow the article to persist? If it is deemed insufficient and deleted, does that raise the bar for evidence needed to reinstate the article in the future? Is there an intermediate step which would allow the article to return when the subject receives more coverage? Sbnoble —Preceding undated comment added 20:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment. Thanks for your contributions, User:Sbnoble, and we appreciate your revealing your interest. As Wikipedians, we'd prefer to see those connected to a company admit their connection. If you haven't already read Conflict of Interest, I'd recommend you doing so. As to your specific questions, the basic criteria for inclusion can be found at WP:GNG and WP:V (see also WP:IRS); the supplemental guideline which applies in this case is WP:COMPANY. I'm not sure I can answer for consensus but I'd say generally yes, that deletion generally raises the bar for later inclusion. The intermediate step is what we call WP:Userfication, a removal of all material to a userspace sandbox where the work to date can be preserved and further growth and sourcing can be applied. If you request userfication from the closing administrator, especially after revealing your interest, you may well find a willing ally. BTW, you could at any point prior to deletion copy the contents of the page to your own sandbox, say User:Sbnoble/sandbox, and then you'd be able to pursue page development even if the pagespace were deleted. To summarize, thanks for admitting your involvement (it speaks well of you as an editor and has earned you some respect, at least from myself); IMHO the best thing an involved party can do is source the heck out of their page, using multiple independent and reliable sources. Further, one can userfy a deleted page to continue development even after deletion. If I can be of further help, please feel free to call on me on my talk page. BusterD (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete:an enterprise software company that develops, sells and supports software for the data transfer market, apparently selling a proprietary alternative to TCP/IP for internal networks. No showing of significant effects on history, technology, or culture. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:44, 21 February 2012 (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.