Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genesis EW


 * 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. Jaranda wat's sup 21:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Genesis EW

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is for a company. It doesn't reference anything other than it's own site or assert any notability. DraxusD 10:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am also nominating the following related pages because they were created by the same user on nearly the same day, and seem to be related only to this company: DraxusD 03:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete no assertion of notability, and cannot see any evidence that it would meet WP:CORP after doing some searching. Article is also a near copy of the "About us" section of the company website (copyvio?).  David Underdown 10:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This applied only to the company article, on the others now added to this afd, I'd be inclined to 'delete the GenCOM suite article for similar reasons, but the other 2 seem to have potential for expansion into more general articles. David Underdown 09:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as above, seems like it misses WP:CSD by the slimmest of margins. Burzmali 14:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete - Electronic Order of Battle and COMINT metadata are known issues in Military Intelligence area. PBKLM 09:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC) — PBKLM (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  Adrian   M. H.  20:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete the main nomination and GenCOM re: WP:V. Neutral about the other two; might scrape through with the necessary improvement. I suggest to the above editor that he concentrates on achieving that goal if he wishes to see them stay.  Adrian  M. H.  20:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree COMINT and Electronic Order of Battle could stay if they are improved. I don't think the reference to Genesis EW should be on the images in those articles. DraxusD 10:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 07:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I must protest if I may - as to the terms Electronic Order of Battle and COMINT metadata, well - those, as mentioned are known issues. As to the images – those are copyrighted images and the information is shared by the company, hence, must be related to it. As to the company's page – since it's a unique niche company in an unexposed market, that will to expose itself and its products as a source for better understanding of COMINT, I think it is worth mentioning at least as any other company page such as Elbit, Microsoft etc. If you think the page should be rewritten so it will emphasize the abovementioned, so it will be. And last – as to the GenCOM page: I couldn't find any other reference in the wikipedia to any COMINT Software or methodology (mostly becuase such software is extremely unique...). This page is a unique source for understanding the methodology, functionality and structure of a COMINT software. Since this page has an interesting exclusive information, and is not what so ever an advertisement, I can't find a reasonable argument to delete it.     I suggest that before we all start deleting with eager one should first of all have a clue about this not widely known topic (SIGINT), after that he should study the information available today on the wikipedia and only after that measure the value of the 4 pages that are discussed above. Now, since i assume we shell no longer argue the wide interest and unique info source those pages are, there is no need to delete any of them. I will be more than happy to recieve your comments of what should be changed either if it's rephrasing, elaborating or rewriting. Best regards to you all.  Comint 07:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "This page is a unique source" – and therein lies the problem. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, remember? You seem to have forgotten that.  Adrian  M. H.  17:31, 9 July 2007 (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.