Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JReport


 * 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. Analysis of links suggests there is indeed no reliable, in-depth, secondary coverage. Note that the last link added was this, where the product gets one sentence on page 6 of 11. Drmies (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

JReport

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk 16:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Links that establish notability:

http://siliconangle.com/blog/2015/07/10/jreport-reveals-its-secret-sauce-rhsummit/ http://www.streetinsider.com/Press+Releases/JReport+Excels+in+Reporting+and+Visualization+According+to+Butler+Analytics/10640102.html http://siliconangle.com/blog/2015/07/10/jreport-reveals-its-secret-sauce-rhsummit/

http://www.bbbt.us/events/bbbt-jinfonet-2015/

http://teich-communications.com/jinfonet-at-the-bbbt-oem-or-direct-a-decision-is-necessary/

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-328030418.html

http://www.itjungle.com/fhs/fhs070913-story09.html

http://www.itbriefcase.net/mapr-distribution-now-ships-with-apache-drill-1-0

https://drill.apache.org/blog/2015/05/19/the-apache-software-foundation-announces-apache-drill-1.0/

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-366790706.html

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-224625210.html

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-3040559651.html

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-338610193.html

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-217933657.html

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-217504805.html

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-310021890.html
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by FromLeIntenetz (talk • contribs) 17:38, 22 July 2015‎ — FromLeIntenetz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Do they establish notability? I looked at them, and the kinds of things which I found were:some blogs; a page which states that it is a press release; a page which finsishes with teh words "Jinfonet CEO Bing Yao says in a press release", and has all teh appearence of being jsut a write-up of that press release (some other pages look rather like press releases, but don't, as far as I noticed, explicitly say so); various announcements of activities that the business has done at various times, such as a notice of the fact that an organisation is intending to renew a contract with JReport; a report that someone working for the company told people at a conference about some aspects of the company's work; a page on a site which says of itself that its "mission is to leverage business intelligence for industry vendors" (PR-speak for saying that its purpose is to promote businesses), and so on. Merely producing a large number of links to web pages that mention the company does not establish notability. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You say these news articles found on highbeam.com are press releases and/or likely to be content either paid for by the company or are outlets that have business motives, which may or may not be true, but more importantly I would like to know why is this page up specifically targeted for deletion for notability issues when there are plenty of company/product profile wiki pages just like it that are not up for deletion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birst

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaspersoft

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tableau_Software

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowfin_Business_Intelligence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qlik

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logi_Analytics

How does this page have any less notability from those? If you look at the references and citations on those pages it can also be similarly argued that those are press releases and promotion content. Also this page has been up for almost 8 years serving the needs of industry researchers without having notability issues, why now?

FromLeIntenetz (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out those other articles. You seem to be right in thinking that they are no more notable than JReport, at least as far as some of them are concerned. I have proposed three of them for deletion. Another one was nominated for deletion years ago, but there was clear consensus at the deletion discussion that it should be kept. The other two articles you mention may or may not be suitable for Wikipedia: it is not immediately obvious, and at present I don't have time for a detailed check. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. No substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. I agree that the links provided above consist of superficial, unreliable, or first-party sources and do not establish notability. You may wish to read WP:OSE in response to your most recent argument. "Other stuff exists" is not a good argument in deletion discussions, generally. Possibly those other articles should go too, although I haven't checked them. ~ RobTalk 21:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * There were many links that were found through highbeam.com that was deemed notable enough to be published by news outlets. News outlets are not superficial nor unreliable. Just because the sources included statements made by employees of the company does not mean it is a first-party source or was written and promoted by members of the company in any way.


 * This page is a work in progress and is a page that is outdated and lacks information (company size, technological uniqueness etc). Is the topic so un-notable that it warrants deletion before the article can be fully updated with more current links? This is a topic of technology in which people in the business intelligence industry frequently do research on. Just because it does not have an academic paper written on it and uploaded to JSTOR does not mean it isn't notable in the industry.FromLeIntenetz (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 00:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Database Trends and Applications Magazine The article in question is the champion product of a company that was listed as one of the top 100 data companies on DBTA, an authority news site on the subject matter.


 * Gartner is the premier research and advisory firm on the subject matter. Publishing market research reports that are taken as authoritative and objective in many technology industries. Magic Quadrant is one such report. Here JReport is listed as one of the technologies objectively evaluated.

173.79.40.127 (talk) 01:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: 173.79.40.127 has made no other edits apart from this comment.


 * Delete - references are a blog, a dead link and a non-secure site that raises security concerns. No reliable sources given.
 * When the page is done, the sources listed here will be references. Please review those instead (Gartner, DBTA) and the various news articles. These establish industry notability. This is a B2B software and has strong notability in its field. FromLeIntenetz (talk) 13:08, 23 July 2015 (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.