Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GeoLearning


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

GeoLearning

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article doesn't assert any importance whatsoever. It tells us that this is a SaaS company, that it was founded, that it made some money, and lists its products. Just about every single reference comes from their own website, and parts of the page seem to be mild advertising or at least skewed like a brochure. There is not a valid third-party source listed, with exception to their CEO winning some awards. The CEO may in fact be notable (tough call), but I don't think this company is. I am able to find some press releases about the company, but not much that's more significant than that. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 13:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Thank you. I am attaching references and will work on the content.Bencarstens (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)bencarstens
 * When this page was created, it was done so by using every other entry in the marketplace as a template. Being one of the very first SaaS LMS companies, I find that it is very relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bencarstens (talk • contribs) 13:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, you should be able to address the issues in the AfD to prove the notability, right? &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 13:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment There is a guideline which we use to determine if an article for a corporation should exist if challenged, and this article in that deletion review. To make the article pass this test, you should read WP:COMPANY and add content to improve the article.  Then reply here and ask us to have a look. patsw (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yet another advertisement for a back-office business, described in vague jargon --- managed learning services and on-demand Software as a Service  (SaaS) learning management system (LMS) solutions for corporate internal training, talent management and external initiatives --- and meaningless sales patter --- best-of-breed functionality approach --- without a credible showing of long term historical notability or historical, technical, or cultural significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Matters of writing style are handled by editing the article not in AFD. You incorrectly characterize the general policy for including an article in Wikipedia as requiring long term historical notability.  It does not, otherwise no new companies would have articles.  The article content is descriptive and while using some peacock language does not fall under WP:ADVERTISING. patsw (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * New companies should not have articles. We are making an encyclopedia, not a business directory, and unless a business has some kind of cultural or historical significance, or is recognized for having achieved a significant technological breakthrough, it is not an encyclopedia subject.  This article makes no case for that kind of notability.  And vague peacock terms and sales-oriented patter resists editing: to be rephrased neutrally, it has to mean something to begin with, and the ritual invocation of "software as a service" (in English, I think that means you're never done paying for it) and similar empty phrases doesn't really give anyone without a conflict of interest much to work with. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've added some references from industry-leaders and respected sources - Gartner Research, Software & Information Industry Association, Ernst & Young, American Business Awards, U.S. Small Business Association, as well as industry-leading magazines Human Resource Executive Online, E-Learning! Magazine and Inc. Magazine. They consider GeoLearning to be a notable company within this field and deserving of recognition.Bencarstens (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)bencarstens
 * Keep. The added references should be reviewed by the nominator and delete voters. I believe that the article reflects significant third party coverage of the subject and passes WP:COMPANY.  An explicit assertion of importance is not required. patsw (talk) 04:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * None of the references really convince me that this business has the kind of lasting place in history needed to be an encyclopedia subject. Because the tawdry business of business makes so much noise, importance is exactly what is required, and the thing that distinguishes those businesses that are encyclopedia subjects from the ones that ain't.  And the article is still full of "solution"-speak that only gets worse the more mutual admiration society awards get added. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. A notability discussion is about cited third party coverage being either missing or trivial, it is not about whether an editor deems the subject "important" or having a "lasting place in history". In particular, the dbusiness and Silicon Prairie News references are typical of the references which accompany articles on businesses of this size in Wikipedia. patsw (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. GeoLearning has been in business for 13 years and was a pioneer in the SaaS-focused approach to learning management. The "you're never done paying for it" comment suggests a problem with the industry and not the entry itself. The company is just as significant, or more so, than some SaaS and LMS entries within Wikipedia and I think it would be a disservice to leave it out. Bencarstens (talk) 14:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)bencarstens
 * Re: Your "see other companies" argument. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 14:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: I understand. My intent was not to base the argument on that. I believe the content and references linked stand on their own. Bencarstens (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)bencarstens —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bencarstens (talk • contribs) 18:58, 22 July 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.