Talk:Noank Media

Contested deletion
Not the page creator here. I saw the creator complain directly via Jimbo Wales' talk page, rather than following procedure. I see no reason to delete the page as it stands after the edits; it seems that OP first roughed in a version that didn't stand up to policy, and then attempted to refine it in good faith, but was not given enough time to work on it. Seriously, the page was templated almost immediately; we shouldn't expect all new editors to get everything right the first time.

As for the stubbornly-created current version: it cannot reasonably be called "advertising" because the company is apparently defunct as of 2010, and its notability is clear from a simple Google search. The provided information thus far seems reliably sourced. There are also previously existing pages for multiple individuals formerly involved with Noank, i.e. William W. Fisher, Jim Gelcer and Paul Hoffert.

--76.69.72.50 (talk) 05:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I also checked the user's talk page history, and discovered significant additional planned work on the article. 76.69.72.50 (talk) 05:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Possibly notable (see update)
I have removed the speedy tag, becuase the subject is possibly notable: Given these factors I don't believe the article qualifies for a speedy deletion. A good faith effort to see if it can be developed is worth making (setting aside any conduct issues with the article creator), and if doesn't seem to pan out, we can always take it to AFD. Abecedare (talk) 07:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) the association with Berkman Center for Internet & Society and Prof. Terry Fisher, means that this is not an outright scam
 * 2) also see this NY Times/Gigaom article
 * 3) plenty of coverage on Google Books in works related to IP law and innovation (although this coverage may turn out to be insufficient in depth)
 * 4) the company is now active mainly in Canada and China (hence the Chinese webpage). So there is possibly more coverage in Chinese language media, including under the alternate name: Fei Liu Internet Technologies
 * Given the IP hopping, SCRUTINY, and ArbCom issues surrounding this page and its editors, I restored the CSD just so that an admin can review it. I admit to assuming bad faith, but there's some clear issues going on and feel it's best the CSD remain.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 07:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If has time, maybe they can look since they were dealing with the IP editor on AE who is related to the creation of this page.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 07:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it is important for us to be able to separate content and conduct issues. But I am not going to edit-war over this; I trust wikipedia processes will work ok in the end. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 07:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Update: Ok, I looked at the sources at some more depth, and it appears that the company never went to a product/commercial offering stage (as far as I can determine it only ran a 30 day beta trial in Hong Kong in July 2008); and even its website went blank sometime in 2010 according to the archives at wayback machine; after which the web-address was taken over by some unconnected loan-offering enterprise. So even if we create an article, all it will contain is details of the " IP licensing idea", and future plans for the company circa 2008. The "idea" can be covered briefly in the Berkman Center for Internet & Society or Terry Fisher page (since it originated with them), while the company itself is IMO unlikely to meet WP:GNG standard if it is taken to AFD. Given that, I am now personally indifferent to it being speedy-deleted. Abecedare (talk) 08:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * per the update above, suggest the text be merged into the Berkman Center article. There's enough here to include a line or two there. I note the second sentence is a copyvio from the Noank website, which would need rewriting. Will do the merge myself in an hour or two, unless a) someone beats me to it, or b) the article gets speedy deleted by someone else in the meantime. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with your suggested plan. Will leave it to you or any other volunteers to effect the merger. Abecedare (talk) 09:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)