Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomos 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tomos Software[edit]

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

Non-notable startup company. Cannot find significant coverage. Article created by a principle of the company (see talk page). Haakon (talk) 13:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gartner and voke (started by a former Gartner analyst) are reliable and secondary sources independent of the subject. voke's specialty covers Application Lifecycle Management, so it's notable within its field. While the article was started by a principal, it appears to have adhered to NPOV policies. --141.160.5.251 (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Haakon (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vehemently. Unambiguous advertising for a product with a very small user base: TOMOS ALM is a SaaS-based web 2.0 ALM solution. Targeted at business analysts, developers, testers and project managers, TOMOS ALM provides integrated modules for creating, tracking and measuring the software development process. It is web-based, distributed software that feeds into a centralized database. If you say "web 2.0" and "SaaS" you ought to have your mouth washed out with soap.

Use of language such as "solution" makes this obviously slanted in favor of the wonderful things this software can do for your business.

Heh. I also despise buzzwords, but that doesn't mean the whole article is compromised. This is Wikipedia; change the wording. Deletion is a bit heavy-handed.

Gartner is a consulting firm that produces reports on businesses for investors; their warrant covers all businesses that can be invested in, and as such mention in one of their reports confers no notability whatsoever.

As I mentioned earlier, voke is devoted to the ALM space, and as such represents peer recognition. I say we invite expert industry comment, not CfD.

This is also an article that sprung full blown, complete with categories and infobox, at its initial insertion. I suspect paid insertion for publicity purposes. Note also that the user page of the originating author now redirects to an encyclopedia page for another non notable business. (That redirect isn't kosher, and the user page probably ought to be speedied.) - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COI is not a reason to delete. We delete when CoI compromises NPOV; this article does not seem to put anything non-NPOV. And since when did user pages get speedied? That's the most outrageous thing I've heard on WP. --141.160.5.251 (talk)

Cross namespace redirects are not at all favored. Redirects from article space into user space are pretty much delete on sight. The other way around is not quite as intolerable, but may be seen as a claim of ownership if a user adopts an encyclopedia article as a user page. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 22:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the terms SaaS and Web 2.0 that offend you. I assure you my mouth has been washed with soap. I have also cleaned up any terminology that in any way be interpreted as advertising. The Gartner report is not a standard one but an award to the company, singling TOMOS out for high praise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhayduk (talk • contribs) 19:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep TOMOS is a notable company. I am familiar with the marketplace and know users of the software. It may have been written by someone who doesn’t have thorough knowledge of the rules, but it can be cleaned up to remove words such as “solution”. Many other companies use the terms “SaaS” and Web 2.0” and Wikipedia has pages on both topics. --68.237.204.77 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment--Smerdis raises an interesting dilemma: if an article is sketchy on first appearance, it very often gets deleted as having no significant content and we tell them to write off-line. If if someone does that, and submits a complete article, it is suggested it be judged negatively as showing a suspicious knowledge of Wikipedia. Our COI rules right permit COI people to write articles, if they do it right. Gartner's reports are fairly reliable, but I do not know its contents, nor the significance of its deisgnation as "Cool Vendor" DGG ( talk ) 21:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You;re right in pointing out an apparent Catch-22. But I think common sense comes to the rescue. The critical distinction between the sketchy article that doesn't make a strong case for inclusion, and the article that comes off amazingly polished at its first appearance, sprung fully grown like Athena from the head of Zeus, is the presence or absence of a possible profit motive. Regrettably, there are now consultants out there that offer businesses advice on how to insert spam articles into Wikipedia to manipulate search engine results, and how to build them to pass initial scrutiny and game the system to avoid deletion. It probably would help if the user who wrote these articles had at least a couple edits on unrelated articles; the editor who started this article does not. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam, spurious referencing that doesn't actually demonstrate what makes this company any more interesting than some other company. Miami33139 (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If it were spam, the article would have been db-spam'med ages ago. The article describes a corporation, and does not advertise, nor host spam links. +

Spurious referencing in the article? Could you specify? If it's spurious, it can be eliminated. --141.160.5.251 (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am curious as to teh relationship between Tomos Software and RTTS. It appears both companies are related to User:Bhayduk. The ADF for RTTS also makes an appeal to Garner as a source, and I've added a note there about my thoughts on Gartner as a source for notability versus verifiability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the articles spell out the relationship between them. One is a spin-off of the other. --141.160.5.251 (talk) 19:25, 29 October 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.