Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MetriQ


 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

MetriQ

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Speedy deleted as spam a week ago, although that article focused more on the company than the software. Fails to establish notability. The two "references" are abstracts of papers co-written by a Metriq employee who also created this article. Fails WP:COMPANY dramatic (talk) 09:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, new to wiki, but have added a short page on talk about this. Thanks, nile Nile1964 (talk) 00:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Software is notable by way of refereed citations. Text book citations also exist but have not been included. Perhaps added. JuryEales (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but do these mysterious citation say why the software is notable? We have plenty of verification that the software exists.


 * Delete. Lack of independent coverage. The papers listed as references, although apparently in peer-reviewed journals, are co-authored by a MetriQ employee. —C.Fred (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. This then becomes an interesting discussion. The co-author is, in this instance the second and event third author, never lead. However this presents a paradox. Would Einstein be refused reference to relativity on Wiki because he authored the refereed paper? The whole point of peer-review is to ascertain the 'novelty' of the work, and in so doing state its noteworthiness and hence Encylopedic content as verifiable. By being peer-reviewed, the author of the Wiki page detailing this work must surely become irrelevant.JuryEales (talk) 10:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your point would only be relevant if the Metriq software was the subject of the cited papers - which does not appear to be the case based on the title, abstract and appendix that those of us without a subscription can see. We can best assume that metriq was used as a tool in the study. Quelle surprise! The fact of a company founder using his on software in research for an academic paper does absolutely nothing to support a claim of notability. dramatic (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Trivial. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 10:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Accept. I think that if researcher develops a measurement tool, then it generally done so as part of a larger body of research, for specific job, and look at metrics. Use that tool and produce data for researcher and part of peer-reviewed study, is of useful to know. If that tool is now commercial I think this does not detract from it is use and not matters. I know this tool used in University of Bologna for example. Sorry my English not so good. Carlos Estandu (talk) 03:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Acceptable content. Carol Robertson76 (talk) 06:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Accept Some interesting comments, but overall acceptable content. HCM City ClioRapter (talk) 14:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. I prefer to vote for keep than delete for articles BUT a) The site of the software company is under construction b) There are no accessible links to the referred articles so I can not check how relevant they are with the product c) The article needs serious work to become encyclopedic. For example there is no real explanation of what Metriq is and how it is used when it dedicates most of its length describing the company. Pxtreme75 (talk) 20:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Appears to be small startup with no indication of shopping product, number of employees etc. Doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion in any way. I note that most of the accounts voting accept appear not to have previous done any edits - SimonLyall (talk) 03:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Feedback - Some interesting threads. I have re-written the article, i hope removing the objections put forward to date, which included an incorrect link to Metriq.com. Ooops Nile1964 (talk) 04:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It now contains more statements which are in need of direct citation, and there are still no independent references. If you wish to save the article, finding independent non-trivial references is the only way to go. dramatic (talk) 07:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Quantifiable and doesn't seem self-serving. Fantic (talk) 16:29, 4 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.