Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EnterpriseWizard Inc

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. Cirt (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EnterpriseWizard Inc[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotion for non-notable company; article written by several single-issue users. Google News yields a couple of press releases, but I have been unable to find anything more, and nothing close to being significant independent coverage. Haakon (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Fits the profile: known for their Workflow and Customer Support solutions, and businesses of this sort need to be pretty remarkable before they qualify for standalone articles. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Author: I would welcome any actionable suggestions for improving the article, but the above comments are simply not accurate. You say that you could only find a couple of press releases, but every paragraph in the article is backed by references and there are by articles (not press releases) in InfoWorld (eg http://www.infoworld.com/t/applications/enterprisewizard-releases-customizable-crm-967, http://www.infoworld.com/d/developer-world/saaswizard-offers-app-dev-saas-027) with independent comments from China Martens, an analyst from the 451 group and Steve Chipman, CEO of LexNet. There are also articles in Internet News (http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3531_569691) and other publications.

The company is also covered by independent analyst firms. For example http://www.infotech.com/research/help-desk-vendor-landscape-outside-the-box-solutions. Info Tech highlights them as being one of the four Customer Support (Help Desk) vendors that address cross-enterprise needs, which places them in a fairly small group and I note that Kayako (one of the other four companies, covered in this category by InfoTech) is included in Wikipedia.

It is also not accurate to say that there are two references in Google News, there are over 80,000 other references to the company available in Google.

Incidentally, the world's third largest company (Chevron) runs their Sarbanes Oxley processes on EnterpriseWizard software (http://www.enterprisewizard.com/chevron-case-study.pdf) and they are critical to another dozen Fortune 100 companies that I am aware of. Should I have included this information in the article? I did not do so because it sounded like advertising and I wanted to keep any emotional content out of the article.

This company is far larger and more influential than dozens of companies, such as Fogbuz that have entries in Wikipedia. I believe that Wikipedia must adhere to a consistent set of criteria in deciding what companies merit inclusion.

I have made some edits to clarify these points, but do not want to introduce content into the article that will make it sound like an advertisement. Please let me know what I should do to improve this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RicharHMorgan (talk • contribs) 06:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seemed to take issue with the fact that it is known for Customer Support and Workflow. I believe the analyst coverage mentioned above on Help Desk (internal customer support) addresses the first point. The reason that the company is known for it's Workflow solutions is that it currently the only company that provides a graphical workflow editor that actually creates business processes, rather than just producing pictures of them (see http://www.enterprisewizard.com/flash/WorkflowDemo.html) for an example. I did not include this information in the article because it sounded like advertising, should I have included it?

Incidentally, I do not work for EnterpriseWizard but it my spare time, I do maintain a website, http://www.aidsstories.com that is funded by their CEO in an attempt to reduce the spread of AID's among intravenous drug users (I believe that he also provides some matching contributions for employees who contribute to Wikipedia).

Please would you clarify what you mean by "single-issue users?" Apart from holding down a career in Silicon Valley and maintaining the AID's Stories website, I work several community groups and contribute in multiple ways to the online and in-person communities.RicharHMorgan (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every one of your Wikipedia edits relates to EnterpriseWizard, and that makes you single-issue. You have a conflict of interest and should not edit Wikipedia to subjects you are closely involved with. All that aside, the article needs to demonstrate that the subject fulfulls the general notability guideline -- please read that if you haven't. Thanks. Haakon (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "every one of my entries". This is my only article about EnterpriseWizard and I did make sure that it met the notability guidelines. I have no involvement with EnterpriseWizard nor a conflict of interest. Why do you say that I am closely involved?.

By way of contrast, I am closely involved with the needle exchange issue to combat AIDS and am writing an article on that subject that is based upon the research that I originally did on this subject and which is published here: http://www.aidsstories.com/stats.html. Does the fact that I have put countless hours into working on and researching that subject disqualify me? I suppose that George Bush would qualify to write an article on AIDs because he is not involved in it, but I would not? Is that really your standard?

You have not responded to my points about the errors in your original posting. Please do so. In particular: Why did you state that you could only find two mentions and they were both press releases, when the original posting included references to articles written by editors at InfoWorld (the largest and best respected of the industry publications) and comments by industry analysts? Why did you state that you could only find "2 press releases" as references, when a Google search shows tens of thousands of references?

Why are you allowing articles on companies that no-one has ever heard of, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisTract, but not an entry on EnterpriseWizard? Are you trying to block this company -because- they are contributing to the fight against AIDS?

Haakon, how exactly should the article be modified in order to meet Wikipedia standards? If you would like to propose specific changes, I will be happy to respond, but I was scrupulous about avoiding anything that sounded like advertising and every paragraph is backed by independent references. Forgive me, if I sound upset, but I have been fighting for the truth my whole life and your bland comments about "does not qualify" without any specifics and assertion of statements that are simply untrue sound just like the arguments that I hear against gay marriageRicharHMorgan (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through your edit history, every single edit relates to EnterpriseWizard or one of its products. You are working for a project financed by its CEO. Just because it's a noble issue doesn't mean Wikipedia's guidelines stop applying. I have never seen DisTract before, so I am "allowing" it to exist. Other stuff exists, and I cannot be expected to keep Wikipedia with its more than three million articles perfectly consistent. It's a work in progress and I'm trying my hardest. And, no, I am not pro-AIDS. To repeat myself: you have to add references to significant independent coverage by reliable sources. That's the only thing that needs to be done. I have not seen any such sources yet. Haakon (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about EnterpriseWizard so of course every edit that I have made refers to the company. How on earth could it be otherwise? You give the impression that I have written a series of articles about the company and this is absolutely false. What other edits are you referring to? How on earth can someone write their first article on topic X for Wikipedia if it is going to be rejected on the grounds that "all your edits are about topic X"?

Are you planning to first get this article deleted and then reject my article on the economics of needle exchange programs because "all my edits are about needle exchange programs". Incidentally, please read http://www.aidsstories.com/stats.html. These programs save lives AND money. Incidentally, I never said you were pro-AIDS and nor is George Bush. He is just opposed to doing anything concrete about it.

Once again, I am NOT paid by the CEO, nor have I ever been paid by him, or by the company. Like the guys who did the design work on the site and I guess like you, I contribute my time freely.

Lets look at this allegation from another perspective: Are you paid by Wikipedia or are you, like me, a volunteer who is trying to make the world a better informed (and therefore better) place? Lets suppose that Jimmy Wales launched a project to feed children in Africa. Would you feel it reasonable if someone denied you the right to write an article about that project to feed children in Africa on the grounds that you were "working on a project financed by the Wikipedia CEO"? Or would feel that it was absolutely absurd? Well that is exactly the situation that I am in.

OK, maybe I need to calm down a bit. You asked for examples of significant independent coverage on the company by reliable sources. Here are some:

http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3745861/SaaS+Tool+Offers+Custom+Database+Development.htm http://www.ebizq.net/news/9003.html http://www.channelinsider.com/c/a/News/SaaSWizard-Helps-VARs-Work-Application-Magic/ http://www.infoworld.com/t/applications/enterprisewizard-releases-customizable-crm-967 http://www.computerworlduk.com/technology/development/software/news/index.cfm?newsid=6692 http://www.infotech.com/research/help-desk-vendor-landscape-outside-the-box-solutions

In brief, every major B2B publication covers them. Do you need more references? If so, let me know how many you need and I will find them. But how much independent coverage can you find for DisTract? Would it help Wikipedia if I spent a few days erasing or nominating for deletion every mention of a company or product that does not meet your definition of "signficant" coverage? Or would you consider this vandalism? If they latter then why? Why exactly are you so intent on applying an different standard to this company than others?

Note: There is no lack of referenceable material that I did not include because I did not want the article to appear like an advertisement. I went to some pains to provide an objective reference and I took care to make sure that every paragraph was free of emotion and plainly factual. But now I feel like I am being attacked for failing to include all this stuff and maybe that is what is getting me upset. However, I guess that is my problem, so lets get back to the point.

Please advise on how I may best include the above and other references in the article without making it excessively long or turning it int an advertisement? RicharHMorgan (talk) 04:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every edit you've made since 2007 relates to EnterpriseWizard. This is not a matter of course, and it is what makes you a SPA. Thanks for the sources; they should be in the article, but it's not always easy to bake them into the prose. The easiest way in the short term is just adding them as a list under the "References" section and not citing them explicitly. "B2B" coverage is not necessarily significant, since they typically have a narrow readership. But we will see how this AfD plays out. Haakon (talk) 10:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Haakon (talk) 10:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added these references, plus a few more for good measure. Is this enough, or do you need additional references? RicharHMorgan (talk) 20:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have also added an article on "Needle exchange economics". Please would you review it for tone and provide your suggestions. It is a fairly emotional subject, but I have tried to stick strictly to the facts. RicharHMorgan (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not accurate to say that the referenced magazines such as EWeek and InfoWorld have a narrow audience, they are the leading magazines among IT professionals and cover every aspect of business IT technology. Since "adding references to significant independent coverage by reliable sources is the only thing that needs to be done" and these were added a few days ago, I have removed the "nominated for deletion message". Personally, I think that all these references make the article look like an advertisement, ideally, I would have liked to add the references without their showing up in the text, but could not find a way to do that. If there is a way, or yuo need further references, please let me know RicharHMorgan (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The article seems like an advertisement for the company, and is written mainly by single-purpose accounts. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lack of significant secondary coverage, sourced mainly through their own website and press releases. Unconvinced that deletion will cause major setback in the fight against AIDS. Eyes bleeding from reading above comments. Holly25 (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Biased non-notable self-promotion Rotovia (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 08:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete and/or userify. There is independent coverage about this company in [1] Infoworld and [2] Computerworld UK, and [3] internetnews.com, but this wiki article has clearly been written in a promotional manner by someone related to the company, emphasizing how many branches they have and so forth. It needs to be rewritten from the WP:SECONDARY sources. Pcap ping 08:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete given the above, it's very clear that this is an attempt to use Wikipedia as a venue for advertising. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:09, 17 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.