Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dundas Data Visualization, 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 no consensus. I can't discern any real consensus one way or the other, even disallowing the comments of the blocked/spa accounts. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dundas Data Visualization, Inc.[edit]

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

Advertising for a non-notable company. I can't find any reliable sources, only press releases and social media sites. TN X Man 19:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This company is noteworthy. It is well known in the software industry, and has been recognized as such (e.g. Microsoft) See Dundas Components Acquired by Microsoft. How often does Microsoft acquire software from a non-notable corporation?
Dundas is also mentioned in the Microsoft SQL Server wikipedia page Microsoft SQL Server. In addition, Dundas is also mentioned in Visual Studio magazine: Dundas Dashboard offers Developer Hooks. I can go on and on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin58474 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- SPA Note:This user has very few edits not relating to this company. Sven Manguard _Talk 00:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This business produces advanced Data Visualization and Executive Dashboard solutions. Your guess is as good as mine.

Just about every sentence here contains another promotional claim: designed to let users quickly build full dashboard systems... an be integrated into most browsers as well as most portals ... broadened its product line to include support for other Microsoft technologies ... solution for the rapid creation of executive dashboards ... can be integrated into any web application....

When it's this spammy, notability is irrelevant; but having tech acquired by Microsoft doesn't seem to be a unique enough event to justify a standalone article; that's what Microsoft does. Three GNews hits, all routine announcements of the acquisition. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did an edit to this company page and noticed that recognition should be made to the company's contribution to SQL Server Reporting Services within SQL Server 2008. There is sufficient enough non affiliated coverage to determine its notability in the space of Dashboard technology. It's listing in Bloomberg businessweek and Deloitte Technology Fast 500 also establish its notability beyond its industry. User:redsixfannorth - 22:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- SPA Note:This user has no edits not dealing with this corporation. Sven Manguard _Talk 00:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While the article was definitely a deletion candidate to begin with, most spam was removed and I believe this is now mostly a matter of whether this is enough for WP:ORG or not. Some references for that were added and I believe it is work in progress, so I'll delay an opinion till it is done (I removed many external links which can be used as references as well, they are now on the talk page.) --Muhandes (talk) 13:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure the article really needs all it has now, but I think notability is established as "it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." --Muhandes (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Plenty of reasons here to make this article notable. It shouldn't really have been nominated. scope_creep (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page is valid as a record of the history of the still widely used Dundas Components.Jrg999999 (talk) 09:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- SPA Note:This user has no edits outside of this page. Sven Manguard _Talk 00:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Closer Please note that three Single Purpose Accounts are involved here. SPI will be notified shortly. Sven Manguard _Talk 00:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Posted at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Martin58474. Sven Manguard _Talk 00:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular ^talk 00:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources found through a News search are mainly PR releases, or trivial mentions as per WP:ORG and WP:RS guidelines. "Brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business", which has been used above as evidence to support a keep, is considered to be trivial coverage by WP:ORG standards.--res Laozi speak 05:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IMHO this one is rather clearly nontrivial and WP:RS (while most of the others can indeed be argued); don't have time to look for more right now. Ipsign (talk) 11:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Weak Keep but will need heavy cleanup from ad-like wording (which I can try to do myself if it survives). BTW, IMHO this company is substantially more well-known under its previous name Dundas Software, but if I understand it correctly, this fact shouldn't disqualify the article per WP:N. Ipsign (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if there is anybody trying to protect the article by using WP:SOCKS, note that it has a strong negative effect rather than positive. For example, it was difficult for me to say keep after all the promotional activity related to the article. Ipsign (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the impressive number of footnotes the number of reliable sources discussing the company is zero (the only possible exception being the network world blog post that Ipsign mentions). To me that is not enough to constitutate substantial coverage. Notability on wikipedia has nothing to do with fame and everything to do with coverage. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:40, 26 November 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.