Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corizon

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. Cool3 (talk) 21:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Corizon

Corizon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

• Queried speedy delete as "not notable". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• No speedy delete but probably Delete. A quick google news archive search found many hits: [1]. However, most of these seem to be recycled press-releases. This is hardly a clear-cut case, however. I just cleaned up the page, removing a huge amount of material that was only sourced on the company's website, and that read as highly promotional. There is little left. But I'd like to see some thought put into whether this page is salvageable or whether it should be scrapped altogether. Cazort (talk) 21:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• Going with delete. Only press releases seem to exist, not much else. Want to say speedy on account of no content. All it says is what they do in not so many terms. Spam, maybe? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• Hmmm, borderline. [2], [3] are a couple of reasonableish sources, though it would be nice if the sources were a bit more mainstream. The author works for the company, so spam may be an issue, but in its present form I don't think it's necessarily a problem. Overall though, I think Delete. Quantpole (talk) 23:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• Guys, appreciate I work for the company, certainly not try to add any spam here. Have a look here [4] for a white paper from Oracle on the importance of UI, Composite Applications etc. and also here from Cisco, [5] - certified partner. Certifications and Specializations to add. The same true for Avaya - [6] - people writing applications using our approach. Also independent Butler Group review - [7]. You also have independent research that this market should hit $700m by 2013, that means more companies, more innovation in this space - [8] Is this not notable? Thanks. Nigelwalsh (talk) 11:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• It's generally frowned upon to edit pages that you have an interest in (as employee, owner, etc.). I appreciate your effort to provide sources, however. I tend to avoid using whitepapers as sources. The article you gave in Information Age provides detailed coverage, but it isn't exactly independent because just about all the content in that article is from the CEO's comments. The last source is a blog which is not really acceptable as a reliable source because it's self-published. This seems a tricky case to me, because there is so much detailed coverage--but in my opinion there is virtually no independent coverage, which is very important in notability. I.e. sources that are written in detail, but are not simply recycled press releases or interviews with people interested in promoting the company. Cazort (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as spam per G11 WP:SD. Polargeo (talk) 20:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• I agree to delete but in my opinion, there are too many google news hits, and they have too extensive of coverage to have this one speedily deleted. Yes, I think they are mostly recycled press releases, but this is a subtle point that cannot be assessed at a glance, you need to actually read them, compare, and think a bit. Cazort (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks Cazort . Its new to me, so I'm just learning the etiquette. I was disappointed to see people so quick to delete without seeing or reading into the facts as you note above. As with any tech company, much of this is generated to create awareness of what the start-up is about, early success stories etc. Not everyone has the Conusmer Brand & Awareness of Oracle Corporation, Google, Microsoft etc. Wikipedia, Microsoft, Google - all start out small. Look at the history and pain Jimmy Wales went through in the early days before the platform was opened up from peer review to public review that sees Wikipedia as it is today. The original offer to Larry & Serge from Yahoo that they turned down. These are all milestones in the journey to become great organizations. I believe Corizon is on that journey, it compliments and challenges well the SOA, Enterprise Mashup and Composite application stories and much more. I doubt Oracle Corporation or Cisco would associate with companies for the sake of it, this is our path in the making and therefore I believe notable and if nothing more fact as you would expect to read. Finally, looking around Wikipedia - you list other corporate products, e.g. Oracle Oracle Developer, Microsoft Popfly and many more - can you help me understand why this would be here and not another software product that is also commercially available? Thanks in advance. Nigel Nigelwalsh (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Please Cazort. Article was created by someone from the company to promote the company. We are being used WP:SPAM. I've googled it and it doesn't strike me as notable in any way. This is a clear speedy. As nice as Nigelwalsh (User created to promote company) is his reply above shows this 'I believe Corizon is on that journey'. Well when it makes that journey it might have a neutral article on it but WP:CRYSTAL. This has to go and quickly. Polargeo (talk) 06:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • See WP:CRYSTAL. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Many pages are created as spam/advertisement but grow into legitimate pages because reliable sources are available. I have already blanked out the spammy content from the article so there's no issue of having it sit around in its current form. Nothing is gained by hasty discussions. This company strikes me as a marginal enough case that it is not totally clear-cut, for reasons I described above. Let's just let the AfD run its course. Cazort (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Even Nigel says they are starting out. By the logic you outline we would never speedy delete anything. We waste too much editors' time debating AfDs for clear SPAM. I really hope Nigel develops into a strong wikipedia editor. His company gets some great notability and gets an article but wikipedians have to be aware of just how much prominance wikipedia has on the web. Someone googles 'mashup' and wikipedia is the top hit. Nigel's company name/website is now linked in its own important article from the mashup page, giving it prominance and cudos. Or at least it would be linked if a competitor (anon editor) hadn't removed his link here Polargeo (talk) 19:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Weak delete - There is some coverage as already noted earlier in the discussion. An they are included in this article. But taking everything together, I still don't see this meeting notability. -- Whpq (talk) 20:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • You're right the link reads like a press release to an industry magazine. Polargeo (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• I love you guys enthusiasm to delete this! Whpq Perhaps you can point me to some good examples of small software start ups that have pages on here that also meet your criteria of Notable and you could point to as what good looks like. I can probably point to 100 that read like their own website and marketing collateral, just look at the list of software companies listed on Wikipedia and take your pick. Cazort Thanks for removing the other parts, I'm happy with this. I want to paint an accurate picture of the company, its achievements, customer, awards, patents awarded, and what makes it unique. Other sources for example with comment from external analyst include: [9], Gartner Podcasts [10] (interestingly how does the Gartner page read, it includes it's website, competitors, Edgar online and links to the BBC etc???) So before I add anything that doesn't confirm - does listing important customers count (I suspect not, but its an argument being used here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/JackBe for saving it. It would appear that the rules referred to can and are being subjectively interpreted. If the ultimate end is that this peer group decide to delete and not allow the community to add more detail, then it needs to be consistent across the board. Is that a fair statement? My first addition from a notable, independent source would be this - [11] by Oliver Young, an Analyst with Forrester Research in which he references Corizon. Your view? By the way this is like peer review for a PhD - and this is the viva!! Nigelwalsh (talk) 23:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • other sources I would like to include: http://www.ebizq.net/blogs/bethgb/2007/05/ides_for_soa.php and http://blogs.zdnet.com/service-oriented/?p=1963 - I look forward to your help in crafting this as the template for what good looks like Nigelwalsh (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS outlines why we don;t consider other articles in the discussion for this one. The focus should be on reliable sources providing some depth depth of coverage. I simply don't see this here, and none of the links you've provided have altered my view. -- Whpq (talk) 03:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Response to Whpq, Sometimes I feel this is a futile exercise, and by the looks of it I'm not alone. I found both of these when trying to learn the appropriate etiquette here and improve the article. Wikipedia:Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument and Wikipedia:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG!#Avoid projecting elitism Would love your help in getting this right Cheers Nigel Nigelwalsh (talk) 06:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Okay Nigel. This is what is needed. You need to find sources that address Corizon as a company in detail, not just a peripheral mention of the company. These sources, lets say ideally a couple at least, need to be independant and secondary. Examples of these independant and secondary sources include mainstream media (so industry magazines are not included) or peer reviewed journals. The existance of a mention of the company in these media is not enough, the article needs to contain significant coverage about the company. However, my argument for speedy deletion, which still stands is that this was put on wikipedia as a blatant advert (we call this spam), therefore should really be deleted, even if it could be argued that it might ultimately be notable. You would then have the opportunity to argue recreation of an article about corizon when the independant sources are found. Blogs don't really cut it as sources, certainly not to start the article up anyway. Polargeo (talk) 08:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Thanks Polargeo. So the two independent sources that I propose are from the Butler Group and Data Monitor. Both independent and referenced 100's of times throughout Wikipedia under almost any technology article states (I took my example from here after a random search Ericom Software. A Butler Group Technology Audit stated, "Butler Group recognises Corizon as an established player that is able to deliver an already mature product offering . The Data Monitor Perspective State, "Its key differentiation is its unique top-down approach to mashups which separates the design and creation of the end user application from underlying IT systems . I also plan to reference these as per below and as per your note. Can you confirm that this is OK before I make any change? Does this work for you as a starter for 10? Thanks. Nigelwalsh (talk) 07:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
          • Nigel. These sources are still industry related. I personally don't think they are sufficient. Other editors have different standards to me so wait and see but you only give the links to the websites not the actual stories. Anyway thanks for pointing the Ericom Software article. I have tagged it for notability and advertising. This could be a speedy delete I'll give it a couple of days and see what the reaction is simply because it has been around for a while. Polargeo (talk) 11:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• one other quick question, should I be testing this out on a stub first and then asking for your input. I also put together a company info box and saved that in the corizon talk, Its probably not the right place but I didn't want to put it on the main page based on this discussion. Can you advise. Thanks. Nigelwalsh (talk) 07:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

This may also be closed through a wp:snow clause I think.Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment While even the creator agrees that this was put here to draw attention to the company (making it spam and therefore deletable as it stands) I do disagree firmly with Polargeo's assertion that industry publications are not reliable sources. Some industry publications are vanity press by another name I agree, but others have clear independence and serve a similar function to the peer reviewed journals of the scientist or medical researcher. To disregard the whole of the 'trade press' is to create an unnecessary hurdle.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Okay maybe I was generalizing a bit. But it is very easy for a company to get its press release published in an industry magazine, maybe not in the main news section but as a pseudo advert. Also I suppose I am thinking of whether it is a source through which we can establish notability. An article in anything other than an international quality general industry magazine does seem to suggest a lack of notability outside of the specialist field. Polargeo (talk) 14:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

References

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.