Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Namahn
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 per consensus. Article needs clean up though, and better sourcing. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Namahn[edit]
- Namahn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
consultancy organisation with slim notability. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Namahn was the first user-centered design consultancy in Belgium. The article satisfies the notability requirements as set forward in WP:CORP. References to scientific research and publications, whitepapers, lectures could be added. Mvuijlst (talk) 23:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless more evidence of notability is presented. GoogleNews returns only 6 hits[1], at most 5 of which appear relevant. There are two foreign-language sources referenced in the article. I'd like to know what they are about. Perhaps someone with necessary foreign language proficiency can provide a summary here. (Strictly speaking, some kind of translation of selected portions should be included in the article, per WP:RSUE). I am fairly skeptical at the moment as for a truly notable company I would have expected more coverage. Nsk92 (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Namahn keeps a low profile. The first article referenced is an extensive two-page article (see [2], [3]) in Knack, the Belgian equivalent to TIME, Newsweek, Der Spiegel, L’Express. The article introduces the concept of user centered design. At the time, Namahn (then called Integration by Design) was the only company doing that kind of work in Belgium. The article title is "It isn't the computer's fault"; it situates the issue (with an example of Stinger missiles in Aghanistan, supplied to the Mujahedin by the US, but sadly not user friendly enough so unused and rusting away :). It goes on to describe user-centered design, explaining that "Integration by Design creates prototypes and wireframes, that are then user-tested and lead to a style guide". It goes on by describing Integration by Design's methodology: "Both developers and end users participate in short, intensive workshops to arrive at a correct task analysis. Integration by Design then interviews users at their place of work to gather their business needs." The article continues along those lines; the methodology described is still recognisable as one of the tracks in Namahn's current (and much liked in the community) methodology poster.
- Actually, the simple fact that Integration by Design's name change to Namahn in 1998 warranted a -- granted, short -- mention in Trends, Belgium's leading financial and economical weekly, headlining the section, above MCI/Worldcom's merger and Apple's third quarter financial results, pretty much establishes notability. :)
- A more recent article in Computable (market leader in the Netherlands for information avout ICT jobs, products and services, with the highest reach amonst ICT decision makers, according to DIMS 2007, an independent study by Interview-NSS/Synovate) was probably written after one of Namahn's lecture events. It talks about user-centered design concepts and features an in terview with Namahn's Joannes Vandermeulen, where he mainly talks about mental models. Mvuijlst (talk) 00:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:ADVERT. It's quite blatant and just not notable enough. It would require extensive re-writing and referencing to be worthy of remaining. TorstenGuise (talk) 11:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry you feel that way. You had it earmarked for G11 speedy deletion about a minute after the article was created, but I think I addressed your concerns. The assertions are non-controversial and backed by relevant and independent sources. As for notability: as I mentioned before, I think the article complies with WP:CORP, as it has been the specific subject of coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Yes, there is room for improvement. It's a stub that I'm confident will be improved over time. Mvuijlst (talk) 12:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Does it not say that you are an employee of the company? That breaks WP:CONFLICT. Not an excuse for deletion, but it should be taken into account as to your reasoning and point of view. Also the other keep vote is someone that has had a lecture from the company. Very shaky ground. TorstenGuise (talk) 16:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry you feel that way. You had it earmarked for G11 speedy deletion about a minute after the article was created, but I think I addressed your concerns. The assertions are non-controversial and backed by relevant and independent sources. As for notability: as I mentioned before, I think the article complies with WP:CORP, as it has been the specific subject of coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Yes, there is room for improvement. It's a stub that I'm confident will be improved over time. Mvuijlst (talk) 12:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notability is of course a very slippy concept. I just want to add that for the country in Belgium and in the sector in which it is active, it is certainly a very notable company. The company is also mentioned for its quite unique, at least in Belgium, open bookkeeping policies - Michel Bauwens. Warning: I was once invited for a lecture, this is how I know them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.47.44.59 (talk) 13:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A non-consumer consulting business, apparently Internet oriented. This sort of business needs a strong showing of notability, and the article's assertions do not make the case. I couldn't even find the name of the business in the Dutch language website mentioned. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As the article mentions: the name of the company has changed over the 21 years it has existed. I am surprised at the statement "this sort of business needs a strong showing of notability". Notability is a relative thing, as Michel Bauwens mentioned above. Namahn is notable among its peers in its wide region. Mvuijlst (talk) 19:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Michel Bauwens has not mentioned it. Someone claiming to be Michel Bauwens from a random IP and not a Wikipedia user account has commented. I'm slightly concerned with the use of this alleged "referee" who seems to be very supportive of your argument, and then you reference his page on Wikipedia. If I were a betting man, and had less good faith, I'd think an RFC could be used here to see if there is a bit of WP:SOCK going on. I'm assuming that it's not though, even if you are the only vocal advocator with a legitimate account. Hope you can see where the concerns are coming from. TorstenGuise (talk) 21:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah. I can see where you're coming from, indeed. I trust the comment is indeed by Michel Bauwens, but how would one go about verifying the person's identity? Would someone send him an e-mail? Or do we AGF it to be the case? Mvuijlst (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well just a quick whois reveals a Thai ISP. Still doesn't mean it's him as it seems to be a dynamic IP and still could be an open proxy. It's also a one-off entry unique to that IP. TorstenGuise (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah. I can see where you're coming from, indeed. I trust the comment is indeed by Michel Bauwens, but how would one go about verifying the person's identity? Would someone send him an e-mail? Or do we AGF it to be the case? Mvuijlst (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Michel Bauwens has not mentioned it. Someone claiming to be Michel Bauwens from a random IP and not a Wikipedia user account has commented. I'm slightly concerned with the use of this alleged "referee" who seems to be very supportive of your argument, and then you reference his page on Wikipedia. If I were a betting man, and had less good faith, I'd think an RFC could be used here to see if there is a bit of WP:SOCK going on. I'm assuming that it's not though, even if you are the only vocal advocator with a legitimate account. Hope you can see where the concerns are coming from. TorstenGuise (talk) 21:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As the article mentions: the name of the company has changed over the 21 years it has existed. I am surprised at the statement "this sort of business needs a strong showing of notability". Notability is a relative thing, as Michel Bauwens mentioned above. Namahn is notable among its peers in its wide region. Mvuijlst (talk) 19:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, as a matter of fact, I do think that inclusion standards should be somewhat higher for non-consumer businesses, especially if they involve consulting, advertising, publicity, computers, or the Internet. Brick and mortar businesses selling consumer goods have a public face, and generate reviews and discussions of their products. Non-consumer businesses IMO need to be noticed by the general public; trade publications, industry awards, and the like should not count as notability.
It's also no secret that Google likes Wikipedia, and getting a Wikipedia article is a good way to boost your search engine prominence. Tech, advertising, and consulting firms are presumed to be aware of the phenomenon. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, as a matter of fact, I do think that inclusion standards should be somewhat higher for non-consumer businesses, especially if they involve consulting, advertising, publicity, computers, or the Internet. Brick and mortar businesses selling consumer goods have a public face, and generate reviews and discussions of their products. Non-consumer businesses IMO need to be noticed by the general public; trade publications, industry awards, and the like should not count as notability.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Very funny guys, what can I say, only I know that I' m me it seems, but it shouldn't matter whether I'm the real MB or not, it is the argument that counts. Greetings from Chiang Mai. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.47.42.198 (talk) 08:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Article in a prestigious Flemish newspaper ([4]), Lithuanian website ([5]), so they are known outside Belgium, and at least two (possibly a third, but not 100% whether it is about the same Namahn) Google books: ([6] and [7] - Namahn is on page 722, which Google Books does not show, but page 721 makes it clear that it must be about this Namahn). I do not like the state of the article myself, but since I am more into history, literature and linguistics, I do not feel much like working on an article like this. However, the abstract here may help.
--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 09:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: per Paul. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2008 (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.