Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artifact Software

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~~. Stifle (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC) keep, and I need to stop sleepwalk-closing AFDs. Stifle (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Artifact Software[edit]

Commercial software company. Author implies notability by association, mainly being founded by former employees of another non-notable company (this is not the same Sequoia that creates voting systems) that was acquired by Citrix. Financing and a blurb at Dr. Dobbs round up the sources. I don't believe this meets WP:CORP in any way, there seems to be some WP:COI involved as tagged by a patroller, and article was not eligible for speedy (IMO). Pulling into AfD for consensus. §FreeRangeFrog 01:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Claims to be a provides application lifecycle management and project management software, delivered via Internet or Intranet using the software as a service (SaaS) deployment model. Use of these vague and too familiar buzzwords shows that this is a non-consumer online business without any showing of importance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond. I will follow-up shortly. -Derek Vansant —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvansant (talk • contribs) 20:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Thanks again for giving me the opportunity to respond. Let me field objections one by one:

1) Conflict of interest

- I am the primary author. I’m still new to Wikipedia, but as I learn more and more about how things should be done I realize that I should have disclosed that I am an employee of Artifact Software on the talk page. It was not my intention to be sneaky. My user name is dvansant, my real name is Derek Vansant. I originally thought that so long as I wrote from a neutral perspective and referenced everything, I would be fine. In my defense, how many people include the complete and utter failure of their first product when writing about the history of their company ;-).

While I may work for Artifact Software, I do believe I have adhered to Wikipedia’s policy on neutral writing.

From Wikipedia:Conflict of interest: “Who has written the material should be irrelevant so long as policies are closely adhered to. The imputation of conflict of interest is not by itself a good reason to remove sound material from articles. However, an apparent conflict of interest is a good reason for close review by the community to identify any subtle bias.”

Please let me know if you believe anything I’ve included comes across as promotional and I will remove it immediately.

2) "Author implies notability by association, mainly being founded by former employees of another non-notable company (this is not the same Sequoia that creates voting systems) that was acquired by Citrix. Financing and a blurb at Dr. Dobbs round up the sources."

Artifact Software is notable based on the following reliable secondary sources providing significant in-depth coverage of Artifact Software that is national / international in nature:

- The SDTimes article is devoted entirely to in-depth coverage of Artifact Software. In the space that Artifact Software operates, the SDTimes is the most prominent magazine.

- The Dr. Dobbs Journal(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Dobb%27s_Journal) article is not as in-depth, but it is a significant thought leader in the software industry and is tremendously reliable.

- By the numbers, as measured by Alexa, Dr. Dobbs and SDTimes rank #1 and #2 under "Top > Computers > Programming > Magazines and E-zines " http://www.alexa.com/browse?CategoryID=384060

- I have also added a new reference published today by TechRepublic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techrepublic), a part of cnet.com (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnet). The piece is in-depth and extremely reliable. CNET ranks #148 for Internet-wide traffic and appeals to a broad international audience. http://www.alexa.com/search?q=techrepublic

- As for Sequoia Software, I do not rely on that company for inherited notability. It is simply a part of Artifact’s history. However, Sequoia was not a “non-notable company”. A look at the wayback machine (http://web.archive.org/web/20010210002738/www.sequoiasoftware.com/news/news.asp) shows news coverage by Information Week, eWeek, Red Herring, Software Magazine, ComputerWorld, Federal Computer Week, CRN, Washington Post, etc.

- References for the Sequoia purchase and financing are provided to validate the article’s content.

3) "Claims to be a provides application lifecycle management and project management software, delivered via Internet or Intranet using the software as a service (SaaS) deployment model. Use of these vague and too familiar buzzwords shows that this is a non-consumer online business without any showing of importance."

- Application Lifecycle Management (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_lifecycle_management) and Project Management (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Management) are legitimate markets. SaaS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SaaS) is a legitimate delivery model. These words are not vague and they have specific meanings which can easily be looked up on Wikipedia. These words also precisely and accurately explain the business of Artifact Software. I also don’t see how the author’s perceived use of “buzzwords” have any bearing on WP:CORP or WP:COI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvansant (talk • contribs) 23:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, the corporate speak in the article is horrible, and I'd love to see it written in something approaching english rather than ad-speak, but the sources provided do demonstrate notability. --Ged UK (talk) 09:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite per Ged UK. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 10:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems like blatant advertisement, but I still feel like this page should exist. This company has drawn some news coverage: [1] Cazort (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2009 (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.