Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GoldenSource


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant    talk    21:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

GoldenSource

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unambiguous advertisement: Article is about a global software company in the Enterprise Data Management industry. Prod contested without any improvement to the promotionally non-neutral text. Referenced to press releases or PR-based stories on software industry PR aggregators. A global software company in the Enterprise Data Management industry is the sort of business that's just not going to be notable. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 12:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * a global software company in the Enterprise Data Management industry...
 * EDM allows its clients to collect, standardize, consolidate, and manage information about their securities and products, customers, transactions, and other operations, to better manage the distribution of critical data to business applications...
 * Goldensource develops solutions that create a single, high-quality source and integrated platform of trusted data, to improve information quality and efficiency throughout an enterprise. It creates, validates, and publishes a trusted Golden Copy in real time and in multiple formats. Its data management solutions make it easy to access standard content from leading data vendors. It also has a unique ability to link product and entity information with real time transactions and positions, leveraging operational control into financial control.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 12:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC) }


 * Comment. Could you perhaps clarify what in the article you feel is an "unambiguous advertisement", as opposed to an appropriate description?  Nearly all of what you quote above at length seems to be the sort of dryly factual descriptive language one would expect to see in an article on any notable global software company.  Two exceptions are the use of the phrases "high quality" and "unique", but if appropriate (i.e., if not supported by refs) those phrases could be deleted -- and that seems the sort of thing we generally address with normal editing, rather than article deletion.  The article also (now) contains a number of non-press-release articles, that appear to be from industry magazines independent of the company.  Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Just from the quoted portions, the article contains unreferenced claims of "global" impact. It's full of unspecific glittering generalities: "high quality" sources, "integrated" platforms, "trusted", "critical" data and "trusted Golden Copy" (huh???). It "makes it easy" to access "content" from "leading" data vendors.  "(U)nique ability to link product and entity information with real time transactions and positions, leveraging operational control into financial control" - as far as I can tell, this means absolutely nothing, but it uses leverage as a verb.  (Only non-notable businesses ever use leverage as a verb.) It refers to its products, whatever they are, as "solutions", and that's an automatic neutrality violation. It's all about vaguely suggesting how its products or services --- and the article is vague on what's actually for sale here, too --- will make your business run better, while avoiding any specifics.  For what it's worth, software trade websites and magazines are usually media with limited readerships and circulations, which makes them not particularly helpful to establish notability.  This goes double when you're dealing with IT industries, which, let's face it, are where the spam comes from.  But notability, while problematic here, is not the biggest problem with this text. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Your basis for nomination is "Unambiguous Advertisement". Clicking through to see what that means, I see that it relates to "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic."  I don't see, even by your description, how it falls within the ambit of that.  To the extent that there is any puffery -- language not supported by RSs -- we address it by normal editing, rather than by deleting the article.  As to your example, some of the phrases you point to seem to be normal, dry, descriptive editing.  I don't even see the phrase "high quality" in the article -- which you cite as part of your basis for deletion.  And I am having trouble understanding why you feel it is "unambiguous advertisement" to use the phrase "integrated platform" -- that is dryly factual.  Same with "critical data" -- that refers to the company's product being used for data that the company deems critical -- that is dryly factual as well, and not promotional in any way.  Same with "trusted" and "golden copy" -- those are bland industry phrases, reflecting the company's trust in its data (not the trustworthiness of company), and the fact that the company relies on the copy.


 * If you would like to understand more about what the word "golden copy" means, you can easily find many mentions of it. Such as this one.  If you are not familiar with a term, you might consider augmenting the article to better explain what the phrase means.  But that is not a reason to delete an article.  Some of your other comments raise questions in my mind as well, but that is my reaction to your initial comments -- the phrases you point to either: a) are not in the article, b) are descriptive and not promotional; or c) if any are unduly promotional without RS support, they should be addressed by normal editing, rather than by deleting the article.


 * I see that you just used a similar argument in an effort to delete a similar company on the basis of what you believed to be unambiguous advertising here. The result was keep, with editors who had a different view than you did pointing out that AfD is not for cleanup.  I think that same thinking holds here, and it might be worthwhile taking to heart what the consensus community reaction was to your view at that AFD.  Similarly, casting aspersions on articles used as references because you tend to believe that they are "PR-based", an aspersion that you have not support with any evidence, strikes me as OR and a non-verifiable accusation.  I see that the same observation was made to you by another editor at an ongoing AFD, where you took a similar position.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I will level with you. You seem to be an established editor with a solid body of work.  You ought to understand why using the word "solution" to refer to a product or service for sale is an obvious breach of the neutrality policy.  Similarly, the word leverage used in the way this article uses it is a hallmark of text that does not read like an encyclopedia article.  It's a gross abuse of the English language in any case; in finance, the word leverage originally means speculating with borrowed money, never a good idea.  I think it got picked up by spammers because it sounded more dynamic.  To me, it doesn't read like an encyclopedia article; which is why I say that even if this business might be notable, the text we have now does not belong in an encyclopedia.  I see this entire article as shot through with non-neutral language that paints a rosy picture about how this business's products, whatever they are, can help you make money fast on the Internet.  But I'm not getting a clear picture of what its employees spend their time doing or what it sells or makes.  And without that kind of clarity, it can't be fixed by editing.  If it needs translation from jargon to English, it can't be fixed by editing.  And when that jargon also sounds like sales patter, it reads like spam.  I've also never made it a secret that I think that IT businesses tend to be short lived and IT technologies tend to be temporary.  IT businesses need to show fairly significant effects on history, technology, or culture to have articles, and independent sources need to confirm not only that they exist, or that they have products for sale, but that they are that significant, of the kind that will be remembered in histories of their field.  I do not see this article making any such case for significance.  Wikipedia is not a software business directory.  I will also cheerfully confess that I believe that most IT businesses are not the sorts of subjects that ought to get encyclopedia articles.  I suspect many of them are paid insertions for the purpose of search engine manipulation.  Make of that what you will. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 06:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in this article that remotely suggests that its business products "help you make money fast on the Internet". It has nothing to do with the internet at all.  Or with "making money fast".  It is clearly, as it indicates, a company that provides products to financial institutions.  To help them better manage their data.  Nor is there any reason to view this quarter-century company as "short-lived".  Or to suggest that this company with offices in four countries needs to (did you just make this up?) "show fairly significant effects on history, technology, or culture ... [and be] the kind that will be remembered in histories of their field."  I'm troubled that you -- a sysop -- seem to making up criteria, and passing them off as though they are wikipedia's notability criteria.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per my above queries/comments, and nom's responses.  I can't add much to what I've said before.  Except to add that I don't think we should delete an article on the basis that the word leverage is used.  As can be readily apprehended by reading the click-through definition, it is a perfectly appropriate word to use, and I fail to see the evil in it that nom believes is manifest.  In addition, I note that there is coverage not only as reflected in the article and in searches of the company by its current name, but also in searches under its former name here in gbooks, here in gnews, and here in ghits; in aggregate, I see these as well as those refs reflected in the article as being sufficient to indicate that this 27-year-old, 300-person company with offices in four countries around the world meets GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Epeefleche (talk) 07:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep If you aren't familiar with the computer terminology of "trusted data" please check the books that discuss it. You can also look through the snippets of "golden copy" and read a nice definition of it on the first page of Google book results.  We should certainly have a Wikipedia article defining all these common computer terms of course.  Existing reliable sources referenced in the article meet WP:GNG.  You can't delete something simply because you don't like it.    D r e a m Focus  10:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep While I applaud the nominator for fighting the use of advertising on Wikipedia, I must disagree with his statement that "a global software company in the Enterprise Data Management industry is the sort of business that's just not going to be notable". Google News and Books are turning up what seems to be significant coverage, even for a software company. Issues with promotional language can be cleaned up fairly easily, I'll have a try at it shortly. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Procedural Keep - Whatever the sourcing deficiencies here, an "unambiguous advertisement" this is not. Flawed nomination. Carrite (talk) 01:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per editor Epeefleche. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:05, 27 September 2011 (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.