Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daat Research Corp (2nd nomination)


 * 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Daat Research Corp
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The result of the first AFD for this article was no consensus, mainly due to quite a few keep votes with the reasoning that the article was AFD two minutes after creation and that the author should be allowed a chance to expand it. After two weeks nothing has been done. I believe the article should be deleted because it is not notable. If you check the articles history you will see that I spent over two days researching the article and what information I was able to find was unable to expand the article more than a tiny degree. In my (in this case, well researched) opinion there is not enough information on the article available out there to expand the article to anything beyond stub status. -Icewedge (talk) 06:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Icewedge. -- JulesN   Talk  15:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Google Scholar links show that there is some impact in the CFD industry from this company and the engineers it employs. Google News shows some news interest, mostly in trade press.  google Books shows references in published trade books.  the article doesn't seem like spam.  It's FINE at this size or slightly longer, not everything of note in Wikipedia needs to be 2-3 pages long with illustrations.  Also, Wikipedia isn't going anywhere.  If the sources exist establishing the fundamental notability of this article, then it doesn't help to keep deleting it. Protonk (talk) 19:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * All the results you linked two provide only trivial or incidental coverage, WP:RS requires that "sources address the subject directly in detail" to establish notability. There are many results from highbeam.com on the search you linked too but all of them are "(Briefly Noted)(Brief Article)". Also, when you link you should include quotation marks around you search terms, you are getting thousands of erroneous hits for the words "research" and "corp". -Icewedge (talk) 20:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How many of the thousands of false positives show up in the first few pages? And I'm not suggesting that the entire list of articles found there somehow adds to the notability.  I'm simply showing that coverage exists.  Also, brief coverage in general is perfectly fine for establishing notability.  If there isn't a single source that covers the subject in detail then notability can be established from a large number of tangential references in reliable sources.  And I reiterate, Wikipedia isn't going anywhere.  Presumably there exists someone out there with a good deal more experience on this subject that could improve this article, given the possible sources out there. Protonk (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So you admit that OR would be required to expand the article: "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive"(WP:N). There is just no depth in information out there, this is the best article about the company that I could find, if there were several articles of this length that would be ok but it is the only one in its class, all the other results are three sentence blurbs about how "Daat research corp has released a new product that does......". -Icewedge (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I admit nothing of the sort. That's absurd.  Fundamentally, some construction exists if only to reformulate sentence structure in any article, regardless of how well it is sourced.  For most articles that is the case.  In fact, some though HAS to occur for any event/person/etc not already covered in an encyclopedia.  An article can no more be formed from one major source with direct and detailed coverage than it can be formed from a dozen sources that don't cover the source in exacting detail without independent thought.  either method of article creation and sourcing requires some construction by the editor.  "Wikipedia does not publish original research (OR) or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." THAT is the WP:OR policy.  Please let me know how my suggestion means that the article editor would have to commit THAT in order to establish notability. Protonk (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In response to my argument that there was not enough information avalible online to expand the article you stated that the article could be expanded if a user with real life knowledge came along; real life knowledge is more or less OR. -Icewedge (talk) 23:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is true. Also, for larger purposes, I now agree with you about deleting the article.  We get into a slippery slope problem here.  At what point do we claim that interpretation is not original research?  I don't want to be facile, but we all edit in English, this presumes some fundamental understanding of the language that isn't gained from the source material.  Editors who deal with mathematics and physics articles presumably have some experience or talent on the subject that allows them to concatenate information and present it in layman's terms.  Even knowledge of wiki syntax is some outside information applied to an article.  I think that you should reread the OR policy before claiming that my words represent some appeal to include what wikipedia recognizes as original thought in the encyclopedia.  Real life knowledge is not more or less OR in the sense that I was talking about it.  Sure, if I said that fundamental information making the company notable was withheld or otherwise unpublished and that an editor can or should use hidden knowledge to make a claim about notability that isn't supported, then that is a violation (of WP:N, not OR, actually).  But I didn't say that.  I basically said that someone could hypothetically take a large number of indirect mentions of a subject and use their judgment to help establish notability.  That is the same judgment you used to reject the article.  Had you found something else to support the article's notability you would have used that judgment to stop your search and include it in the article.  Creating the sentence explaining why the company is notable is about the same either way. Protonk (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not disagreeing with you there. We seem to have a small misunderstanding (which I concede is mostly my fault), my point was that vital information on this company (such as the number of employees) is unavailable on the internet (as far as I was able to determine) so that if someone with real life knowledge were to use that to expand the article that would constitute OR. Using facts that cannot be sources is most certainly OR. -Icewedge (talk) 05:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. We are in complete agreement there.  The only thing that makes me sad is that you didn't continue to indent furiously!  :) Protonk (talk) 05:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool, we have that settled. In regards to indentation: does this comment redeem me? -Icewedge (talk) 06:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * BLAST! I didn't even think about indenting that much.  You win, sir(or possibly ma'am...strange internet androgyny). Protonk (talk) 08:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete I recognized the name- I was the one that complained about the AfD two minutes after creation. It was a COI (created by User:DaatResearch)- the user was blocked for username violation, but never tried to unblock/request a new username, and nothing else has come of the article. It had a fair chance, but still no apparent notability. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete It's its an SPa and COI then it isn't so harmless to let in languish as a stub. Change mine to delete. Protonk (talk) 21:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2008 (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.