Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Datatune


 * 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. While support was fairly evenly split in this discussion, the policy-based arguments were firmly in support of deletion. J04n(talk page) 11:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Datatune

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It doesn't look like the sources in the article pass Wikipedia's guidelines for identifying reliable sources, and I couldn't find any good sources online, so I don't think this subject meets the general notability guideline. Contested PROD. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 21:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I think articles about historical products are very important. I have researched about this product and am aware that since the Datatune (TargetData) web site was closed 8 years ago, it might take some time to locate further information, but my opinion is to keep this article, which might expose additional people to it, and I hope that it will lead to additional information added.--Zahid2005 (talk) 10:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)--(talk) 10:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Md.Zahidur Rahman.


 * Keep In my opinion, the Datatune article should not be deleted. There are many sources but it might take some time to locate them, as this product is discontinued. I suggest to wait and allow me and other users that might have some further information to fix it.Michael Haephrati (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Now-blocked sock Stalwart 111  05:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. The software is not notable. Michael Haephrati is the creator of the software. The article has been created before (in 2011), but under a different spelling, DataTune. Although only admins can see the content of the article, it was first speedy deleted as promotional, then recreated, and then deleted pursuant to this AfD discussion. Look at the edit history of the current article, focusing on the editors themselves (don't bother with me and Mr. Stradivarius ). It's fascinating, although, policy-wise, all that matters is notability. My search of online sources turns up mainly a company called Datatune, Inc., which is unrelated to the subject of the WP article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Articles are initiated for many reasons. Some of the arguments raised here are irrelevant . New wikipedians can create new terms and articles as well... No one was born an experienced and acclaimed Wikipedia editor... The only issue is the sources which seems to be improved since yesterday. The fact that there aren't official and / or active web pages only supports the claim that this is discontinued (as opposed to commercial ) product, however a screenshot of the old website has been added. The brand name was Target Data an the product name was DataTune. It was probably the first data cleaning automated software. Masgrhk (talk) 08:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)  — Masgrhk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  Now-blocked sock Stalwart 111  05:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - non-notable software article with no RS references - blogs in general are not reliable sources - the sources here are blogs with a clear connection to the developer; article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. An article about discontinued or non-commercial software or organizations can still be promotional, see WP:PROMOTION. Dialectric (talk) 08:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I am a new editor here. I am not experienced like Bbb23 and User:Mr. Stradivarius but I am quite active and have already edited a few articles here. I did not initiate this article but can provide further links from reliable sources. BTW articles which were speedy deleted in the past don't support any of the claims in this discussion, as that could have happen for various reasons, some of which - technical.Michael Haephrati (talk) 08:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Now-blocked sock Stalwart 111  05:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi again. You're right that the sources are the key here - if we can show that Datatune has significant coverage in reliable sources that are completely independent of Datatune itself, then the article can be kept, simple as that. We do actually need to see evidence that such sources exist, though. If we don't have any evidence, then the article will likely be deleted. As well as the notability guidelines I linked above, you might also want to read the simple guide to notability on Wikipedia, and the essay Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (in particular, the sections WP:MUST and WP:DEFUNCT spring to mind). I'll be happy to answer any other questions you might have about the process here as well. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 09:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks for your reply. I am really doing my best to learn how this great community operates. I have been active in the  Code Project community for many years, and I now have a senior status there. I have many questions, but in most cases, I find the answer quite easily here, which is great. I will read the guides you have pointed to me. Finding more sources might take some time. I wonder if you are willing to support keeping this article for say 1 month, and decide then. Another question: what about reliable sources that can't be published here? (like contracts, orders, reference letters from customers?). Are there private channels for submitting them without publishing them as part of the article itself? Do you measure notability only by public domain publicity and mentions? In any case, thanks for your support. - Michael Haephrati (talk) 09:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Now-blocked sock Stalwart 111  05:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't usually extend deletion discussions to allow people to search for sources. However, if the article gets deleted, and you later find sources which prove that the subject passes the notability guidelines, you can request that it be undeleted, or simply recreate the article using the new sources. Be aware, though, that if the recreated version is sufficiently similar to the deleted version it may be subject to speedy deletion itself. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 11:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait Keep it for a limited period of time, and see then if there are sufficient references to justify keeping it. If not, delete it. - Watling2003 (talk) 09:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Now-blocked sock Stalwart 111  05:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I have shared a thought I had about one aspect which pops up in this discussion here Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(summary) (probably in the wrong place? :) but I'm new here...) "Question about public sources vs. private sources - I have been thinking about a possible scenario in which a notable term won't qualify as an article just because there aren't public references and sources to back it up, but there are private ones. These could be materials which are reliable, independent and stand alone, and yet, for various reasons can't be published. For example, a document or an image that is copyrighted. In my opinion, such cases should be examined privately by Wikipedia editors, and approved as being reliable sources, without necessary adding these sources / references to the article itself. I will be happy to hear other opinions about that matter" -Michael Haephrati (talk) 10:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)  Now-blocked sock Stalwart 111  05:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The sources need to have been published in some form. From the general notability guideline: "Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language" (my emphasis). Private documents aren't admissible, and we generally don't second-guess the reasons why something may or may not have been published - if it's not published, I'm afraid we can't use it. There are more details at Identifying reliable sources. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 10:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I worked with people and companies who can verify the authenticy of this product, which was used by companies such as Microsoft. Since Data Cleansing involves locating and fixing errors in a company's databases, most of the consumers of such product won't publish their need of the service, which is obvious. This is why I vote to keep the article.--Yuvalg9 (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC) — Yuvalg9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Note to closing admin please see Sockpuppet investigations/Photopinka. --Rschen7754 19:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Please also see Articles for deletion/DataTune where this article was previously discussed and subsequently deleted. — billinghurst  sDrewth  22:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep – This piece of software is known to me, and I find it significant.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asaturg (talk • contribs) 13:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)  — Asaturg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep – I find this software and article very interesting and significant. Scozturk (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC) — Scozturk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep – The sources have expanded and now back this up well. --Infomatica7 (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC) — Infomatica7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete, obviously. Obvious sock-puppetry notwithstanding (spectacular effort, by the way), I can't see any way this could be considered notable. That one person and his many accounts disagrees is not at all convincing. Stalwart 111  05:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as utterly non-notable. No reliable sources are apparent from a Google search, and none have been presented here or in the article. The sock and meatpuppets seeking to keep the article have not presented even an argument for notability. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Stalwart111, please take back the following sentence: "hat one person and his many accounts disagrees is not at all convincing". I know I'm real  and apparently, I have voted in favor of keeping this article. I see that others have done so too. They are clearly not "his many accounts". Unless you (or anyone) have proved otherwise, you don't have the merits to make such accusation. Just from a quick look, Infomatica7 was active before and focused on other areas which has nothing to do with this article. So is the case of Yuvalg9, and any other participator. As Stradivarius said it: "Hi again. You're right that the sources are the key here". Many sources were added (some of them, like the agreement with Microsoft were removed by Bbb23, and even if he is right, there should be some weight to these sources to backup value of the article in question.--Zahid2005 (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I won't take it back. My comments were in relation to the group of accounts operated by one person. That group was referred to WP:SPI and the sock-puppetry was confirmed. Every account in that group was blocked and I struck comments from each. Incredibly poor form on the part of the promo-spammer in question. That there might also be a group of low-edit-count sleeper accounts is no shock to me. We've seen this rubbish before, many times. No one is impressed and it helps the keep cause not at all. Stalwart 111  03:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Someguy1221, and Stalwart111 you might check some of the commenters here which you assume to be meatpuppets, and are in fact real editors (for example: 'Informatica7':contribs and 'Yuvalg9':contribs). If you suspect otherwise, you can always prove it, but until then, please give any commenter here the benefit of the doubt.--Zahid2005 (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * More than happy to refer them to SPI as well. It matters not - no closing admin will give a lot of weight to non-policy arguments like that anyway. Stalwart 111  03:06, 24 March 2013 (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.