Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Architexa


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Architexa

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

As far as I can tell, non-notable company. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Did compete in a notable competition, but did not win it. Sounds a lot like an advertisement, and the creator of the article, User:Vineet Sinha MIT, likely has a conflict of interest, as his account was devoted primarily to the writing of the nominated article.--Hongkongresident (talk) 08:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Account was created after MassChallenge had multiple news stories with no entry in Wikipedia. My conflict of interest has been that I took part in the contest. Of the 110 Companies that were finalists, Architexa and 25 others went on to split the $1M dollar. Given that enormity of the program and how few startups made to the end of this largest incubator program, I felt that they were worthy of inclusion. I have requested information of the 24 other companies and have intended to put them up, but I can stop if you feel it is not appropriate.  Vineet Sinha MIT (talk) 03:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Vineet, the best way to improve the article, IMO is to include in it the history of Relo and your doctoral dissertation and other published (and peer-reviewed) papers. The tool is really more important to readers than your company, though you can mention your company's name in passing. I think this article deserves to be kept, but you need the right focus (software, not company). &mdash; HowardBGolden (talk) 14:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Will enter information on Relo as well. The secondary question is - should I get the other companies that went past the Final stage to the award stage to have an entry on Wikipedia? (getting the information here is work - and I would only do it if it makes sense) -- Vineet Sinha MIT (talk) 03:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily; we're not really interested in other companies (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS -it may be that they shouldn't exist either). We're mostly interested in seeing how this company conforms to our notability guidelines - namely WP:CORP. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I am working on doing a significant rewrite, to not only increase the above concern but to also address above recommendations. Please give me 2-3 days. -- Vineet Sinha MIT (talk) 12:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  --  Jujutacular  talk 03:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  --  Jujutacular  talk 03:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sources do not establish notability. - MrOllie (talk) 14:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Significantly Updated based on above recommendations - shows the notability of the company from the technical perspective. I can easily add more nice parts (like pictures, logos, other information), but my goal really is to first make sure that the content meets the basic needs here. -- Vineet Sinha MIT (talk) 04:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, you've added content, but you have not added more independent sources - I checked the sources in your new content and they appear to be papers written by you. It is the sources that are lacking, not the content. - MrOllie (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * All the sources are peer-reviewed at the top conferences within the field and have been referenced by others multiple times. The citations were meant to be the authoritative pieces and have significant discussion on details on each topic. -- Vineet Sinha MIT (talk) 13:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's all well and good, but the notability guideline for companies says: 'A company is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. - MrOllie (talk) 14:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, both 'Architexa in MassChallenge' and the technical publications have been cited in reliable and independent sources. Sorry, I am just not sure what part I am loosing you at. --- Vineet Sinha MIT (talk) 17:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "independent of the subject". It's great that other people have cited your papers, and that they are peer reviewed certainly means they are reliable. But we need at least two totally unrelated people who have written a non-trivial amount of coverage on your company. - MrOllie (talk) 18:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * These papers that have been cited are the core of the company. The citations are almost always non-trivial and by unrelated people. Perhaps this might help. To give two examples, I pulled in two articles from the linked pages that should meet your criteria: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=1134285.1134428 and http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/VLHCC.2007.12  - Vineet Sinha MIT (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 21:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC).
 * The first article you list's mention is in the related work section, which reads 'Relo builds and automatically manages a visualization mirror of the developer’s mental model, allowing them to group viewed artifacts or use the viewed items to ask the system for further exploration suggestions.' This doesn't mention your company at all, and even if we were discussing an article about Relo specifically I think this would be a trivial mention. The second article you list has even less, it just includes the name 'Relo' in a laundry list of related work without any description. Again, this is what we mean by a 'trivial mention'. Do you have any sources that are about the company? A newspaper article, or a profile in a trade magazine, perhaps? - MrOllie (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.