Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ciklum


 * 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 considered keep, but the arguments given for that don't seem to be terribly convincing; however, there certainly isn't a consensus to delete this article right now. No prejudice against another AfD opening up, but do give it a few weeks at least. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 23:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ciklum

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Not notable, no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, as required per WP:CORP. Page was speedy deleted (G11) on Feb 18. -- Crowsnest (talk) 13:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys,
 * If that's the case, then surely G4 applies here. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) | (talk to me) | (What I've done)  13:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope. Has to be deleted via AFD to be G4'd. MuZemike 22:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

i see you put my page for deletion. My intention is to make a short entry about Ciklum and to place it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Software_companies_of_Ukraine

I have used references and wrote an unbiased plain fact description of the company. I believe this company deserves an entry in Wikipedia like any other that is listed on the link I have provided above. My intention is to let as well other Wikipedia users to this page to their best knowledge.

I am going to one more section with articles about this company. Yesterday this page was deleted without giving me a chance to voice myself.

I would greatly appreciate your help here.--Ciklum (talk) 13:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - As with most other articles about companies, the main argument for inclusion seems "this is a good company" and "it exists". To the author, who commented above, I would recommend going over WP:CORP before anything else. If you cannot establish that your company is notable for very specific reasons, its entry will probably be deleted. It's not enough to just write the article in a neutral tone. § FreeRangeFrog 20:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Grumpy Keep First of all, it is NOT OK to come onto wikipedia creating a page for your own company when you have not made any previous contributions to wikipedia.  You could probably get away with it if you created an outstanding, neutral article, and if you were a long-standing editor with a good reputation for neutrality, who had made numerous other contributions to wikipedia.  So yes I am grumpy, and I would recommend, Ciklum, for you to refrain from editing this page until you have taken the time to become acquainted with how wikipedia works and have made ample contributions to other subjects. All that said, I see evidence of notability here:, , .  If you're going to expand to include other languages (Russian and Danish in particular), you will find more sources.  My intuition tells me that this company is notable enough to be included in wikipedia.  We should not let Ciklum's actions of using wikipedia as a platform to promote his company cloud our debate about whether or not this page should be included.  Personally, I think it should be.  Cazort (talk) 02:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also...welcome to wikipedia, Ciklum! :-)  And don't let my grumpiness scare you away!  It's really not a bad place to be, you just need to learn how it works.  Cazort (talk) 02:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

- Thank you Cazort for your note, points taken. I will add more references today.--Ciklum (talk) 09:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced, two of those sources are from press release sites so likely lacking in neutrality (unless the first ref is by the initiative rather than the company) - Mgm|(talk) 09:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

- Guys, I have just added more references to improve notability. To user MacGyverMagi: you can see that it is by the initiave itself. --Ciklum (talk) 15:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, there not much articles about Ukrainian company's so all are welcome! I'll post the article on Portal:Ukraine/New article announcements so hopefully some other editors will look at it and improve it! — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, since the article isn't written like an ad I think it should stay. Närking (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment At this moment, I still do not see any evidence for ...significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources... as required by WP:CORP. Most references are press releases or blogs. Only the Dutch "Computable" article is a reliable secondary source, as far as I can see. -- Crowsnest (talk) 10:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, there are 4 independent publications in there, computable (as was previously mentioned), itc.ua, internetUa, and establishingabroad.com. As for press releases sourses: as can be seen from them, they were done by Ukrainian Hi-Tech Initiative and not by the company. --Ciklum (talk) 08:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I speak Dutch, so I can read the nl:Computable article, and it is a renowned IT magazine in The Netherlands. So that is one reliable source (if you like to believe me). In general, references in English are preferred here, see WP:NONENG. I myself cannot assess the relevance of the Ukrainian articles, nor the reliability of these sources. "Establishing Abroad" -- in Swedish: "Etablering Utomlands" -- can not be found on the Swedish WP (for as far as that counts with respect to establishing if this is a reliable well-known news organization). But is there no more news coverage by mainstream news organisations in English?
 * WP:CORP starts with: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable."
 * The verifiability of whether the non-english sources are reliable and independent seems to me in itself already a problem: if I say Computable is a well-known and reliable IT magazine, you have to believe me, but I am not a reliable source in the Wikipedia sense. -- Crowsnest (talk) 11:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

*Delete (reconfirm as nominator) — Not notable: no significant coverage in reliable sources provided. -- Crowsnest (talk) 09:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is unnecessary and confuses matters when we close; your opinion is already noted by virtue of nominating the page. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 22:58, 24 February 2009 (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.