Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XPLANE

Add links
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 delete. I'm gonna go ahead (mmm, yeah) and also put a redirect to X-plane. Proto::type 12:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

XPLANE[edit]

Non-notable company. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 22:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disagree -- do not deleteThe company is the first of its kind. While people like Edward Tufte and Richard Saul Wurman have been touting information design as a discipline, XPLANE was the first company to put a stake in the ground as a global information design/information graphics provider. The fact that such a tiny company commands 30 of the Fortune 500 as clients within such a short period speaks for itself. What are the criteria for a company to be notable?
I read the Wikipedia deletion policy and found no criteria based on "notability." The criteria I saw there were: Verifiability, copyright, accuracy, objectivity. I also read "Articles and text which are capable of meeting these should usually be remedied by editing" as opposed to deletion.
Please forgive me if I am violating protocol, I am new to this. I am the founder and CEO of XPLANE and did not create this page. However I made a minor edit to it within the last week (link to my blog), and suddenly the article which had been there since 2004 was suddenly marked for deletion for no apparent reason. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dgray_xplane — Dgray_xplane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep - I'd like to further add the impact that XPLANE has had on the blogosphere and on progressing ideas about leadership and change. The visual representation of concepts that would otherwise have tough acceptance are often explained in simple and coherent diagrams and other visual representations. This is rare and exceptional in the field of consulting and it helps the communication process a great deal. Removing XPLANE's entry would be a mistake. Doing more to increase XPLANE's footprint in wikiland would be a good thing. Keeping it is an obvious, and educated choice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TobyGetsch— Toby Getsch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep - It seems that 'notability' is being used in a POV sense to delete something which could be built upon to better explain methodologies used. It is a notable first company. --TaranRampersad 07:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: None of User:Dgray_xplane, User:Guy Bjerke, User:Tobygetsch or User:Aaron Gerdes have made any significant contributions to Wikipedia other than to this article and its AfD. --Pak21 09:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no real sign of notability. Prepared to reconsider if citations from reliable sources to show this company meets WP:CORP are added. Cheers --Pak21 09:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The founder and CEO of XPlane has placed a message on his blog asking for people to save it see [1]
      • Comment True -- but I am not sure what is wrong with this (Again I am a newbie on Wikipedia). My blog is well read in the field and the person who has marked it for deletion has demonstrated no expertise or experience in the field. Quote from Wikipedia: "Users are cautioned to assume good faith, and to recall that all new users must start off somewhere. Further, many people with expertise in a specific area quite reasonably make contributions within that area alone." I have no other way to defend the article than to appeal to experts in the field. If you read the blog you'll see that it is not a sales platform but a conversation within an emerging community of design and communication experts. You'll also note that the conversation does not tend to be adversarial. In my understanding the merits of an encyclopedia article are generally based on "peer review." The blog entry was an appeal to my peers for them to add their voices to this discussion. Dgray xplane 18:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC) dgray_xplane[reply]
        • Comment The problem is that the 'peer review' that you're likely to get is going to have a disproportionately large amount of people in favor of keeping the article. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 19:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I am happy to submit to any peer review process that is reasonable and involves recognized professionals or experts in information design, comics, visual thinking or visual explanations. It's not a large community and XPLANE is well known.Dgray xplane 18:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC) dgray_xplane[reply]

We need a newbies message but I can't remember what it is. I can advise that the closing admin may well disregard comments by people with few edits to their credits. What is needed is verification from reliable sources. Aaron Gerdes above has highlighted one such but it needs more preferably in the article. Capitalistroadster 09:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:CORP. Movementarian (Talk) 09:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Outside of Wikipedia, XPLANE is a thriving business that's helped tons of people better understand complex digital information. Pick up any of the last two dozen Business 2.0 magazines and you'll see what they've contributed to the lexicon. Dave and his team have been behind some amazing works to better communication over all, by using visual thinking to put their points across. I'm not sure the "rules" of Wikipedia, but it seems silly to delete something just because the contributor hasn't been toiling away on the rest of the entries. Has Rene Descartes been updating the Spider-Man page? -- Chris Brogan...
    • Comment. Why not take the time to learn the guidlines for inclusion? For instance read through WP:CORP to see what is generally accepted criteria for listing business. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I haven't advocated deletion based on who has edited the article, but on the contents of the article based on previously established and generally accpted guidelines. Movementarian (Talk) 11:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. After reading WP:CORP, and following the influential work of XPLANE for many years, they certainly deserve their entry. Admittedly the content needs work, but shouldn't imply the article should be deleted! --[email protected] 17:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - From reviewing in detail the relevant materials related to qualification for inclusion I would suggest XPlane more than qualifies for inclusion in Wikipedia. Within it's industry it's widely regarded as not just a leader but a unique entity that has essentially defined the space. Their work appears in numerous respected publications such as Business 2.0. While not broadly "notable" as an organization within the information design community they are as notable as it gets and have made an immense contribution to it's industry. - RyanColemanYYZ 14:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC) — RyanColemanYYZ (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
  • Keep. Not only is XPLANE obviously a big player in its field, but the company's contribution also extends beyond the commercial sphere. Their work is an inspiration to anyone and everyone. I stand in awe of their achievement, yet my experience with the CEO Dave Gray is that of a very approachable person, who will allways find time for others despite his busy schedule. XPLANE is a company about communication, who practice what they preach, and not just for a dollar. Their work has inspired me personally in many ways, on a practical and communication level. XPLANE not only contributs in a commercial sense, but to communication as a whole. When a company can reach far beyond their clients, to the far corners of the globe, and in a benificial way, that IS noteworthy. Communication is about just that, and not about protocoll for protocoll's sake. The real question about the wiki entry is about noteworthyness. There is no doubt in my mind, that XPLANE is.Judyofthewoods 15:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)— Judyofthewoods (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
  • In response to the request for citations: XPLANE's work has been published in Discover Magazine, Time magazine, Business 2.0, and Harper's. XPLANE has also illustrated several books, including "Informal Learning" by Jay Cross (inventor of the term "e-learning" and Network Security Illustrated, published by McGraw Hill. XPLANE diagrams have been also featured in textbooks on e-Commerce.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dgray xplane (talk • contribs) 16:03 21 November 2006.

Many of the above links only mention XPLANE in passing or are invalid for other reasons (e.g., risingmedia.net's purpose seems to be promotion of companies for money). Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 17:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well i do have a day job but i am doing my best -- the above is what a quick Google search revealed.Dgray xplane 05:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contribution to Wikipedia is important, and many of us are grateful, but that should not be the only determiner of notability. Experts in the subject should be consulted whenever possible. In response to the definition of "notable:" If any of the posters have practical experience or have been recognized in the field of information design it would be helpful to add it, as it lends credence to their arguments. Speaking for myself, I have six years experience doing information design for major metropolitan newspapers, including the LA Daily News, LA Herald-Examiner, Seattle Post-Intelligencer and St. Louis Post-Dispatch. I have been recognized for excellence in the field by the Society of News Design and the Associated Press. I have spoken at numerous conferences on information design, including
  • In response to charges of verifiability: Every single claim is verifiable. There are certainly ways of knowing. With the exception of the Herald Examiner which is out of business, every single newspaper on the list can be called and will verify my employment. In addition, you can call the Society of News Design or the Associated Press to Verify the awards. You can also contact the administrators of all of the conferences to verify that I did indeed speak. Veinor, this appears to be a personal attack and I am not sure why. Please provide any relevant credentials you have in the field of information design. Dgray xplane 01:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to reiterate that I did not write the article; I only tried to modify it based on the assertion that there was no evidence that the company was notable. Never having been asked to do this before I took my best shot. Now the article has been accused of being too much like advertising, which was not my intent. It was an attempt to redress an assertion by Veinor that the company is not notable. In the field the company is highly regarded and recognized as an innovator. However as the Founder of the company it is difficult for me to write or be credible as an objective writer. However this is not a good reason to delete the entry. I have yet to see tangible suggestions for improving the article, other than the ones I have made myself. Dgray xplane 01:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep I am the author Informal Learning, Rediscovering the Natural Paths that Inspire Innovation and Performance. ISBN: 0-7879-8169-9. XPLANE's use of graphics to improve learning at a major petroleum company warrant an entire chapter. When I was CEO of eLearning Forum, I hosted a conference on visual learning. The three keynote speakers were David Sibbett (founder of corporate group graphics), Bob Horn (author of Visual Language), and Dave Gray (because XPLANE is an importance force in visual learning.) As for other published work, see any copy of Business 2.0 magazine. Or the article in Training & Development magazine on visual learning, February 2002. At Learning 2006 this November in Orlando, I curated the Graphic Learning Excellence gallery, an exhibit of top learning graphics. XPLANE was the only firm to have three projects represented. Cross
  • Delete article does not establish notability as per WP:CORP. --Strothra 20:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am a cartoonist and graphic recorder. XPLANE has a notable place in the landscape of visual learning and warrants recognition. Bnarelle 20:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Brian Narelle, Cartoonist-in-Residence, Charles M. Schulz Museum - Jan. 2007.[reply]

— Bnarelle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The article is beginning to establish notability. I provided the first cite, a CNN article about XPLANE's illustrations of technical business models helping dot com investors. Industry participants and experts will continue to add their knowledge to reinforce notability and expand verifiable information.

I want to stress that this article does need cleanup, but deletion would be a loss for the wiki. If users are still finding material objectionable, I recommend we engage in a Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle like grown-ups. ;) Aaron Gerdes 21:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As evidence of notability, here are mentions of XPLANE in the press going back to the year 2000:

Dgray xplane 01:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia guidelines (Bolding mine):

A company or corporation is notable if it meets any of the following criteria:

1. The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for the following: Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the company or corporation talks about itself, and advertising for the company. Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories.

First: Reading through the list of press mentions above, I believe it will evident that the press mentions are not media reprints of press releases, nor are they advertising, nor are they publications where the company taks about itself.

Second: The articles are not trivial coverage based on the definition given here. Since the press mentions meet the first criteria, and are not covered by any of the exceptions, then I submit that XPLANE has met the standards provided by Wikipedia. Dgray xplane 22:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: As a professional in the field of Visual Facilitation for the past 20 years, I agree that XPLANE is an appropriate topic for Wikipedia. Their work is foundational to a field that contributes to enriched understanding of complex information for businesses and communities. As a result of my research for two books on this topic I have concluded that the capacity to use visuals, symbols, icons and other pictoral references is an important skill for the "information age". The work XPLANE provides also increases their client's capacity to think systemically -- a skill that is critical during this era of globalization.-Nancy Margulies, 21 November 2006

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/XPLANE&oldid=1141930761"