Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laserfiche (2nd nomination)


 * 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 of the debate was keep. I'm disturbed by the possibility that this discussion may have been influenced by recruitment and the presence of people associated with the company, but the article does seem to be considered keep-worthy in its present state. I assume the nominator's threat to take me to arbitration if I closed as keep is nullified by his later 'keep' opinion. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that User:Frogcat is a sockpuppet; the very first entry in this user's edit list is for Laserfiche. Edit here. Too much of a coincidence. If the vote for deletion results in keep, I will be asking for arbitration due to vote rigging. Alex 10:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Suspected sockpuppetry and vote manipulation
 * Eek, I think I may be guilty of asking people within the Laserfiche community who already have editor accounts to participate in the debate. i.e. Wp:sockpuppet. And, as you might note, someone without an editor account has been posting under the name "Employee". So it's not as if I was encouraging people to be deceptive.  More like trying to bring "my side" to the discussion.  Which, as I've learned from reading the soliciting meatpuppets article, is a no-no.  I am very sorry about this.  To make up for this, I went to the document management article to invite people who have done linkspam removal to weigh in on the debate.  The two people I found who seem to be doing this are Mushroom and Renesis13.  To help expose this issue to a larger audience, I have also posted on Requests_for_comment/Economy_and_trade and Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology.  I am not sure if the discussion should move to a user talk page, but I have started a direct line of communication over onAlex's talkpage.--Docmgmt 20:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Laserfiche
2nd nominate (last March 11 2006) non-notable compnay, advert Alex 19:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Maybe speedy since it was deleted before unanimously? Wickethewok 19:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. from comments in laste delete it looks like exactly the same article.  CaptainJ(t 19:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep  Please see reasons below --64.70.34.251 16:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)  updated to reflect my account --Docmgmt 16:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The article on Laserfiche follows the three main principles, NPOV, Verifiability, and No original research and covers a notable company, actually a pioneer in the field of document imaging and document management.
 * If there are concerns regarding Notability (companies and corporations), according to the guidelines, "A company or corporation is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:   1. The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself."
 * When I wrote the article, I made sure to take advantage of the information provided by many articles as references for the informationlisted in the article.
 * If you do the "google test" and search on Document Imaging or Document Management you will notice that Laserfiche is listed in the top 5 results for these categories of software.
 * The article does not meet the Criteria for speedy deletion either. The new article is not a copy from the original article, because I wrote the article myself, from scratch, a few weeks ago.
 * Question - What condition of WP:CORP do they meet exactly? If you're saying that it meets the coverage by multiple notable sources, could you please provide links to those?  Wickethewok 18:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Answer Here's the links from the References section of the article. --Docmgmt 22:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * History of Laserfiche outlined in AIIM Pioneer Award interview
 * 1997 Government Computer News article
 * PC Magazine article
 * A brief history of Laserfiche
 * A brief history of Laserfiche from a National Association of Women Business Owners article
 * Answer part 2 Here's some more recent coverage based on Google searches and the Laserfiche website.--Docmgmt 22:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Federal Computer Week March 8 2006
 * 2006 VAR Business Magazine profile
 * Jan 23, 2006 Government Computer News
 * Feb 23, 2006 Computerworld columnist blurb
 * Sept 15, 2005 CIO magazine
 * Question - Is this autobiographical? Do you work for or own the company? See WP:AUTO Alex 22:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I thought this looked good at first, but I went through some of the references produced by the author:
 * History of Laserfiche outlined in AIIM Pioneer Award interview
 * Looked good, but is a Q&A with the founder of LaserFiche when she was elected to the board of directors of AIIM. A tad self-serving?
 * Response This article was used as a reference source in the Laserfiche article because it provides company history information. As a side note, Nien-Ling Wacker was on board of directors of the Association of Information and Image Management from 1994-1997.  This article was published in 2002, eight years after being elected to the board of directors, and five years after the three year term ended. --Docmgmt 16:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1997 Government Computer News article
 * Okay, one army unit was using their product.
 * Response well, I know they have a large number of customers. I referenced this story in the article because it provides some of the historic detail of the development of the company and products they offer.  --Docmgmt 16:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * PC Magazine article
 * catalog listing of product.
 * Response This isn't a catalog listing, it's what PC Magazine calls a "product bulletin" about a new release. If PC Magazine didn't find Laserfiche to be notable, they probably wouldn't print a story about a new release.  I found this article when looking for references about  Laserfiche, and it helped provide background detail on the software. --Docmgmt 16:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * A brief history of Laserfiche
 * company mentioned in reference to owner being elected to trade association.
 * Response I found this 1994 article when looking for references for some of the historical development of the company and product. --Docmgmt 16:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * A brief history of Laserfiche from a National Association of Women Business Owners
 * article mentions company in reference to owner.
 * Response I found this article when looking for historical information on the company. --Docmgmt 16:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Federal Computer Week March 8 2006
 * Trade show recitation of company and products.
 * Response Well, I mentioned this link in my Answer 2 when I thought I should see if there's any recent press... looks like a notable publication mentioning a notable product release to their readers... in the context of being launched at an upcoming tradeshow --Docmgmt 16:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 2006 VAR Business Magazine profile
 * Business catalog listing.
 * Response Once again, I mentioned this article when doing a quick search for recent press. I guess that is a company profile.  I did a search on "Laserfiche" on VAR Business Magazine and found these results. --Docmgmt 16:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Tech Partners Beat a Path To Success
 * Break Out of That Paper Prison! California police department automates processes
 * Computer And Hi-tech Management Wins HIPAA Deal
 * Top 100 Midmarket Solutions
 * Technological Evolution


 * Jan 23, 2006 Government Computer News
 * catalog listing.
 * Response I mentioned this article when looking for recent press. BTW, That's not a catalog listing, it's a short bulletin by a trade publication for Government Computer professionals describing the release of a new version of the Agenda Manager product by Laserfiche. On some level, the editors must think that this is a notable announcement.  I did a search on "Laserfiche" on GCN, and found 16 articles.  Here's a few --Docmgmt 16:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * GSA PBS hires NCI for technical support
 * Savage, Minn., uses GIS-document management combo
 * LaserFiche suite links documents
 * Exchange Server 2000 named best new product at conference
 * GCN Interview


 * Feb 23, 2006 Computerworld columnist blurb
 * Founder interviewed on team-building uses for IT.
 * Response I mentioned this article when looking for recent press, and I thought Computerworld was a reputable publication. I suppose it's not really about details of the company, but in a way, a reputable magazine quoting an influential person kind of implies a certain notability, no? --Docmgmt 16:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sept 15, 2005 CIO magazine
 * document management system purchased by Iraqi Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
 * Response So... somehow you say "Okay, one army unit was using their product." and now CIO magazine talks about the Iraqi Ministry using Laserfiche, and somehow that's not as notable? Seems even more notable IMHO.  --Docmgmt 16:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe the article fails WP:CORP. Tychocat 09:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I also note your dedication to keeping the article in WP, and your side-stepping the question of whether you're an employee or owner of the firm.  Most of your references are catalog listings, I will not quibble po-tay-to/po-tah-to on how a "product bulletin" is different.  Congratulations on the Iraqi sale, the whole country is a windfall for American contractors, innit?  Frankly, I see more of an article about your founder than the company, she may be notable.  Tychocat 18:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Boy, they're right when they say finding a good source may require some effort... Okay, here's some more evidence regarding Notability (software) I have selected items that seem to fit this criteria --Docmgmt 19:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * "The software has been verifiably the subject of non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the software developer, such as a major media news piece, a book, a peer-reviewed scientific publication, or an article in a reputed technical magazine. A single such publication that is specifically about the software is sufficient; for publications that mention the software while not being specifically about them, and for publications of lower profile (such as a local newspaper or an e-zine), multiple such works are needed."
 * Google books search] revealed mentions such as:
 * Attract and Retain the Affluent Investor: Winning Tactics for Today's Financial Advisor - Page 133. by Stephen D Gresham, Evan Cooper - Business & Economics - 2001 - 224 pages  ... optical storage facilities), scanners, and document imaging software (some of the providers are Laserfiche by Compulink, OnBase by Hyland Software, ...
 * Sci-Tech Libraries of the Future - Page 165 Language Arts & Disciplines - 1992 - 238 pages ... LaserFiche LAN can store document images and be integrated into a Novell network.  The system handles computer files, paper documents, ...
 * Integrative Document & Content Management: Strategies for Exploiting Enterprise Knowledge - Page 516 by Len Asprey - Business & Economics - 2003 - 527 pages  ... LaserFiche United http://www. ...
 * Run It Like a Business: Top Financial Planners Weigh in on Practice Management - Page 35 by Richard J Koreto - Business & Economics - 2004 - 243 pages  However, she was able to team up with LaserFiche, which not only provides the technology necessary for high-speed, accurate scanning but promises to do so ...
 * Winning Clients in a Wired World: Seven Strategies for Growing Your Business Using Technology and... - Page 211 by Kip Gregory - Business & Economics - 2004 - 288 pages Sorry, this page's content is restricted.


 * I don't know how many articles by independent publications are needed to convince people of notability, but a sampling of articles found by browsing through the Laserfiche Press Center reveals articles such as
 * Compulink Tries to Convert Skeptics to Paperless Office, The Wall Street Journal, 15 March, 1990 (Compulink is the parent company of Laserfiche)
 * FEATURE STORY: The Paperless Office Network Computing
 * Laserfiche Fights Crime With Document Management eContent Magazine
 * NJHA and LaserFiche partner to help hospitals manage medical, financial records NewsRX
 * Product News Government Technology magazine
 * Laserfiche Launches Upgrade for Compliant Document Management Wall Street & Technology magazine
 * Una mano en pro de la eficiencia La Opinión
 * Modernizan registro de extranjeros en México La Opinión


 * Keep I am an employee of Laserfiche.  I've been watching the drama unfold.  So my 2 cents may be biased.  Laserfiche is a not well know consumer brand but it is well known within the industry.  Many installations do not get public coverage because document management is not sexy.  BTW, the Iraqi deal was sold though a foreign contractor (not US).  One of our larger customers is the the 'social security' of Saudi Arabi.  It is a distributed system covering different cities connected to a main system in Riyadh (over a bad internet connection).  Another interesting application is in US Congress where mail was converted electronically because of Anthrax scare.  For what it's worth, CIA (can't say what they are using it for--but they do pay for support and I have been involved with their support incident;) We do have a tens of thousands of government installations (small towns, cities, counties, parashes all over the US) helping local government go paperless and publish documents online.  A lot of installations all over branches of the military.  I'm sure all this can be independantly verified if you google it (but I don't have time for this).  I'm not here to start an argument just posting information in good faith.  Employee 12:46PST, 9 June 2006  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.70.34.233 (talk • contribs)


 * Question - your IP address is from the same block as user Docmgmt; a quick browse of the history of both the Laserfiche page and this page confirms that (all from 64.70.34.2xx). This tends towards WP:AUTO, specifically "You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest." It's difficult to write an article that's WP:NPOV from this position. Alex 23:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Looks like they meet the notability criteria to me. --Frogcat 03:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I'd add to my vote to delete, on the grounds of notability, that it's advertising (down to catalog listings), and by the devotion of employees/the owner it also looks like a vanity page.  Tychocat 11:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Aye - I never much cared for those who write articles about the companies they work for, though sometimes I have seen cases of employers asking their employees to write articles for them on Wikipedia. Could be one of those cases too.  Wickethewok 19:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * please read the guidelines for notability Boy, I sure am sorry I've managed to piss you off. I thought I was helping by showing how Laserfiche follows the guidelines for inclusion for corporations. And it follows the guidelines for notability for software.   For people like Tychocat or  Alex I notice you've never before been involved on a deletion for either a corporation nor for software.  Since I wouldn't want to think you work for a competitor and have a grudge against Laserfiche due to its notability in the document management or document imaging industries, I have in good faith been trying to demonstrate how the article actually follows both  Notability (software) and WP:CORP by showing a long list of non-trivial third party references. As stated in both those links.  Perhaps if you had been involved in more deletions of either software or of corporations I wouldn't be feeling suspicious.   Why do I get the feeling that the more I try to provide evidence that the article follows the guideline for inclusion, the less it seems to matter? --Docmgmt 00:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not particularly concerned that you're "pissed off"; my only concern is (and was, see below) that the article at the point where I nominated it for deletion did not meet the criteria for inclusion. I do not work for a competitor of LaserFiche. Also note that this looks and feels like a vanity page. I do, however, commend you on attempting to justify inclusion on the grounds of notability, and the research you have undertaken. My voice is just one amongst many. Alex 19:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * oh yes, regarding the autobiography issue. There used to exist an article on Laserfiche here on wikipedia that Alex nominated for deletion back in March. (The only article he's ever nominated for deletion BTW) I took a look at this article through one of the wikipedia mirrors, and I suspect this article was written by one of our resellers, who are independent companies that are involved in integrating solutions for clients.  I didn't know about any of this and so when I learned that we had an article, and it had been deleted, I set out to create a NPOV, independently verifiable article with no original research.  Its one thing to edit the earlier article, to conform to wikipedia policy, but as it no longer existed, I felt that I could commit this faux pas to preserve a listing of a notable software product, and a notable company (as defined by the earlier mentioned policies/guidelines). I hope I can persuade others to see things this way, and I thank you for you time and understanding.  --Docmgmt 01:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Your suspicion of a reseller being the original author of the deleted article is immaterial to the current request for deletion. Your suggestion that I have nominated LaserFiche for deletion twice out of some implied spitefulness or maliciousness is without justification. The original article was very non-WP:NPOV and was a straight advert without merit, as was this article. I have not nominated any other articles for deletion because I have not found them to be so obviously in breach of Wikipedia policies.
 * For your references via Google books search, please note that none of these articles or books appears to be specifically about the software Notability (software), nor "company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." Notability (companies and corporations). This would exclude press-releases, which are two a penny.
 * You have now answered the question about your status; you are an employee of LaserFiche. Is "Employee" above with the "keep" vote a sockpuppet? Alex 19:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, he only has one other edit, so my guess would be yes. Or else its a different person from the same company.  Also, whats up with that vote from User:Frogcat?  That guy hasn't made any edits in 2 years, and then comes back just to vote in this?  WTF?Wickethewok 19:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey! I was trying to add to the discussion. This is degenerating from a serious discussion to just personal attacks FROM BOTH SIDE.  "Employee" 1:47 PST — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.240.224 (talk • contribs)


 * I tend to agree, but your opinion would count for more if you were to create a userid and sign in; the IP address does not match the block from LaserFiche (it's now 71.105.240.224). It's difficult to work out if you are the same person, User:Frogcat, or a sockpuppet, or just a whatever. Creating an account is a matter of minutes. The discussion here is about whether the article meets the criteria of WP:NPOV Notability (companies and corporations) and Notability (software). I contend that it does not meet the criteria of Notability (companies and corporations) in its current form. Additionally, statements such as "when a client, a large Japanese auto manufacturer, underwent a class-action lawsuit. At the time, paralegals had to wade through thousands of pages of depositions" are uncited and unverifiable. All in all, this article advertising LaserFiche is beginning to fall foul of several criteria over and above the original complaint. Alex 21:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * umm, actually, that info can be verified by third party publications.  Perhaps I didn't format the article where every sentence has a footnote (and if necessary, am willing to do so) but the NAWBO article mentions this, and I believe its mentioned in the AIIM article and maybe the Krakau article. --Docmgmt 01:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * just out of curiosity, is there anything that can be done to demonstrate that this article should be included in wikipedia? I mean, is there a certain length of story that would make you feel the third party reference is notable?  Is there a certain circulation size that would make you think the third party reference is notable?  I mean, let's be reasonable here.  Does the mere presence of an entry written by an employee make the article deletable, with no consideration of attempts to ensure the article is NPOV, verifiable or notabile?  Are there any circumstances under which the article could be edited to satsfy you feeling that Laserfiche could be listed in wikipedia?  I.e.  If you feel that certain sentences are unverified, or biased, could those sentences be removed, and make you feel that, finally, the article should remain?  Please let me know under what circumstances you'd be satisfied that this document management software company would qualify for inclusion. Thank you  --Docmgmt 01:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please read Notability (companies and corporations) carefully and point out which entries in the list of references you have provided meets the criteria. As you are the editor of the article, it is your responsibility to provide this information. I have read the references and remain to be convinced that they support your contention. Press releases and reprints of them are specifically excluded, and do not support your case.
 * The information you added to Laserfiche that I marked as uncited and unverifiable remains so. For instance, the NAWBO article nor the AIIM article does not support the statements you made, and you may wish to correct them in line with it. Nowhere do they say that a client, a large Japanese auto manufacturer, underwent a class-action lawsuit. It is your responsibility to make sure that the sources are quoted accurately, otherwise other editors may simply remove them as they appear to be unverifiable (or, as in this case, verifiably incorrect). Alex 09:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This is bizarre You say there's no justification for suggesting you're acting spitefully or maliciously, but ...?!?!   Let me quote from the NAWBO article, paragraph 3:  "Her vision began to take shape in 1981, while Wacker was conducting a study for one of the major Japanese automakers. American Honda engaged her to design a system to help manage documents, primarily for litigation support. By the time she finished the project requirement analysis, it was clear that the current technology was unable to handle large document volumes cost-effectively."    Let me quote from the AIIM article (see the 8th question) "e-doc: Right around then is when you started Laserfiche.  Wacker: In 1981, we were doing a study for one of the Japanese auto companies to design a system to help them manage their documents, primarily for litigation support. "  --Docmgmt 13:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The WP article you wrote says quite clearly that a client, a large Japanese auto manufacturer, underwent a class-action lawsuit. That is not what either of these articles says. Who underwent a class-action lawsuit? Not Honda, according to these articles. Please cite your sources for this statement. Other statements in the same paragraph are equally not verifiable. Alex 14:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I get it. Although it mentions that in 1981 Honda hired a software company to provide "litigation support" involving large numbers of documents and attorneys, it doesn't explicitly say the words "class-action lawsuit."  I suppose the class-action lawsuit is a public document, and hence can be cited, is that what you think should be done to ensure that the article should remain on wikipedia? --Docmgmt 15:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * how can we resolve this dispute? Are you taking the position that any article about a private software company that was initially written by an employee should be deleted?  That regardless of any considerations of NPOV, verifiability or notability, there can be no keeping such an article?  Please let me know if there are any circumstances that you'd be satisfied that this document management software company would qualify for inclusion. --Docmgmt 14:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with WP:AUTO as long as WP:NPOV and WP:Verifiability are adhered to. These are not criteria for deletion, but for correction. I will transfer these issues to the Laserfiche talk page so you can focus on the issue in hand.
 * This dispute is over Notability (companies and corporations) and the consequent request; Guide to deletion. Notability and the avoidance of advertising or vanity pages is the issue. I would recommend that you raise this article for Mediation should the article be deleted as a result of this deletion request. However, you have not helped your case by having a keep vote by an employee, and another by a possible sockpuppet. Alex 14:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So, if the issue is Notability and the avoidance of advertising or vanity pages, what burden of proof do you require to satisfy these concerns? For example, let's start with "non-trivial."  Since it seems that the links I've provided to show that the company has been "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself," do not seem to fit your criteria of "non-trivial," could you perhaps help provide some criteria that you use to determine if a work is trivial or not?  It's OK if your criteria are extremely strict, I just want to make sure I am not wasting your time by providing links that don't meet your criteria. --Docmgmt 16:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Docmgmt asked me to enter my opinion on this AFD .  After reading this discussion (with the exception of checking all the external references), I felt that this debate could really go either way.  I hate to base a decision on the Google Test, but in this case it became the deciding factor.  In a Google search for document management, Laserfiche comes up as #4.  In my opinion, if Document Management has a Wikipedia article, and the fourth listed company in search engine results for that topic has someone willing to write an encyclopedic article about it, then it is helping Wikipedia and not hurting it.  What we really need to worry about is the linkspam coming from companies listed much, much lower and linking directly from the article itself using common search keywords.  I vote Keep. -- Renesis13 21:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep as per Renesis13. Even if it's a violation of WP:AUTO, I think the company is notable enough to deserve an entry in Wikipedia. Mushroom (Talk) 22:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep notwithstanding the sockpuppetry. The article is now much better researched; is no longer POV and meets (if only just) the criteria for notability imho. Alex 11:41, 14 June 2006 (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.