Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NIX (company)


 * 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. I see no indication that the sources presented meet WP:CORPDEPTH, per the detailed analysis of Vexations and HighKing. The arguments for keep simply do not overcome the lack of appropriate sources. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

NIX (company)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject Vexations (talk) 14:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's my fault that I failed to include all these sources and I am going to fix the article. However, right now I can provide a range of reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject: 1) About Innovation Campus in Kharkiv 2) Company in Global rankings  3) HQ in St. Petersburg in USA   4) Blockchain Expo 2019 5) Regional Development in Florida   6) An Exceptional Pioneer in the Ukrainian IT Industry   7) Law enforcement officers interrupted the work of one of the largest IT companies 8) The best Ukrainian IT employers 2018 were announced --Wellring (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)


 * , you list https://www.pr.com/press-release/796624 and https://www.prlog.org/12797548-nix-at-the-blockchain-expo-2019.html. The first says it's a press release, the second says "by: NIX". How are those "reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"? Vexations (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I do not dispute, because I answered in a hurry. However, it seems to me that I have cited many other sources. -- Wellring (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , OK, can you strike those two please? Just wrap a tag around them or use the Strikethrough template? Vexations (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , no problems, but I have also added two more sources about "Regional Development" Wellring (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , https://www.tampabaynewswire.com/2019/10/15/nix-supports-regional-development-in-florida-81128 is also a press release. Vexations (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , https://itukraine.org.ua/en/nix-solutions-will-participate-in-the-onstruction-of-innovation-campus-for-kharkiv-it-students.html says: "Publication from:NIX Solutions". Is Bossynews a reliable source? Have a look at their head office I don't think so. Vexations (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , you are right. I have striked them. --Wellring (talk) 11:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 14:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * There are two more relevant sources.  --Wellring (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * , Valentin Pivovarov is a Former Contributor. Please see WP:FORBES. Vexations (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, Fails WP:GNG. As all the sources seem to be trivial, primary, or attempts at establishing notability through association. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The initial nominator's claim was: "No significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". We were having a good discussion with . I have provided the sources and while some of them were refuted, most of them were not. Now this is turning into groundless and excathedral attacks on the article. This is not the principle Wikipedists should use. Thus, what is your argument about? If you want to dispute about WP:GNG, we should start from the beginning. However, if we continue to discuss the initial cause of the nomination for deletion, then please study the sources provided more thoroughly. As for your general claim that sources seem to be too trivial and so on, it is unclear which criteria do you use to conclude this. Additionally, please read my answer (to ) below before continuing the discussion. Wellring (talk) 19:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete None of the sources contain Independent Content as per the definition in WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and NCORP.  HighKing++ 16:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but it's outrageous. You are just ignoring a range of sources. Please, clarify for us how come such sources as https://it-kharkiv.com/en (Kharkiv public union);  https://ain.ua/en (one of the largest Ukrainian online magazine dedicated to IT business, startups and entrepreneurship); https://tradepostusa.com (U.S. news website);  https://www.insightssuccess.com (World Business Magazine); https://stpeteedc.com (St. Petersburg Area Economic Development Corporation); https://thekharkivtimes.com (local news website);  https://www.kyivpost.com (The oldest Ukrainian English-language weekly newspaper) contradict the WP:ORGIND and especially Independent Content claim. Your argument looks very superficial. It seems that you just want to grab these various sources of information and strike them by one shot without good reasoning. Most likely, you are not familiar enough with the sources or are quite biased. In general, the initial nominator's claim was: "No significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". I have provided the sources and while some of them were refuted, most of them were not. Thus, I hope for a sensible and thoughtful decision by the Wikipedia community. Wellring (talk) 18:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm the nominator. I'm biased against what, exactly? Vexations (talk) 20:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , well, lets see about me being not familiar enough with the sources tradepost USA is an aggregator (click on the read more link). The article was originally published by the Tampa Bay Business Journal (bizjournals.com/tampabay), an outlet of American City Business Journals. There is no original reporting in that article. The only statement it is used for is the claim that NIX has an office in St. Petersburg. When in doubt about a source, one clue that an article is based on a press release is the phrase "... said in a statement". Press releases don't establish notability. Independent reporting does. Vexations (talk) 20:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , please read my answers more carefully. I wrote: "We were having a good discussion with ". My latest answers do not concern you. I think that the comments of other participants of the discussion are not well founded. Wellring (talk) 12:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a whole lot of WP:IDONTHEARYOU going on right there. Vexations has been kind enough to point out your misunderstanding on WP:ORGIND. You'd do well to take notice rather than doubling down and insisting that I respond to your post which only reinforces the perception that you are not familiar with WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 21:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You are correct in that my original !vote only provided one reason whereas not every single reference fails WP:ORGIND - although most of them fail. So, for completeness, here is the full reasoning. I am unable to locate any references containing significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. It is a common misunderstanding of "references must be independent" to mean that the publisher and the topic company have no corporate links. Most miss the fact that the *content* must also meet certain criteria (most of the ones I've linked to). My analysis of the sources you mentioned are below.
 * This reference from it-kharkiv.com has no credited journalist or source (always a red flag) and is in the format of a press release. The exact same article was also published by Kyiv Post where the entire thing is credited to "Business Wire" (for issuing press releases) and says the article it "By Nix Systems". Therefore no Independent Content, fails WP:ORGIND.
 * There are three references from ain.ua. This one is a mere mention of the company name in a list, no detail whatsoever about the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The next fails for the same reason. The third is a straight-forward comment on the position Nix appears ... in a list. Fails for the same reasons. Those references also fail since that is not considered significant coverage.
 * This tradepostusa reference is not the original publisher which is from Bizjournals. This reference is classic churnalism and is essentially PR. There is no Independent Content - most of the article relies entirely on information provided by the company see the original Press Release here and quotations from connected sources (fails WP:ORGIND). In this article in a totally different publication, the same quotation from J.P.Dubuque is also used - maybe they went to the same "announcement"? There are a lot of other references covering the same event in the same way and they all fail WP:ORGIND.
 * There are two references from insightsuccess. The first doesn't have any accredited source or journalist (a big red flag). The second appears to be a slideshare of the magazine itself containing the same article. Another example of churnalism. Check out the language for example: "the dream of forming the largest IT company in Ukraine", "against all odds", "unique direction", "grown and reinvented itself time and again", "unique approach and software engineering excellence", "prestigious position in the industry" - and that's just the lede. All of the articles on that site are churnalism. Not only does the article fail WP:ORGIND but I'd argue that the source fails WP:RS.
 * The STPE reference is PR and published by a connected source - the St. Petersburgh Economic Development Corporation - who also lend some quotes to the official press release - see link above. Fails WP:ORGIND.
 * This from The Kharkiv Times and provides no information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. It's essentially a couple of paragraphs that says that the police searched their offices with an explanation by the CEO. It is also not significant coverage and fails WP:SIGCOV.
 * This article from Kyiv Post (The oldest Ukrainian English-language weekly newspaper) relies entirely on information and quotations provided by the company and their executives. There is nothing in this article that demonstrates original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, or fact checking that is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject (as per the definition of "Independent Content") and fails WP:ORGIND.
 * Wellring, I can acknowledge that it is very difficult for technology companies, even large ones, to be written about in a way which satisfies the criteria for establishing notability. Most articles are regurgitated company news and PR - but one of the easier ways is if the company has been covered by any independent analysts. I am unable to locate any reports on Nix but perhaps you might have more luck?  HighKing++ 21:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, for the answer. However, I still have some doubts regarding "insightsuccess" and KyivPost.
 * The slideshare link was included to prevent the argument "doesn't have any accredited source or journalist". It is an accredited source and the above-mentioned slideshare is a confirmation. Moreover, it is not a "material that is substantially based on such press releases even if published by independent sources (churnalism)" (WP:ORGIND). I mean the article is wide enough for not to be considered as one that is based on a press release. Thus, is it just about style? Business magazine is not an encyclopedia and shouldn't follow the appropriate style. Churnalism is not about the style and the phrases you have provided. Consequently, it is not a churnalism. Therefore, I am not sure if it is a sufficient argument to reject this source.
 * As for KyivPost, you wrote: "relies entirely on information and quotations provided by the company and their executives". The article includes some author's opinions, some widely available information, and some quotations that cover just a little part of the text. It is not enough to say that it "relies entirely on information and quotations provided by the company and their executives". Additionally, in WP:SIGCOV it is stated: "It does not need to be the main topic of the source material". This article does give a general description and overview of the company (it's about 's claim below).--Wellring (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to respond briefly. The slideshare link is further confirmation that there is no accredited journalist but this, by itself, wouldn't put me off. To clarify, it's a red flag to be cautious and a little suspicious, not a red flag to reject the source entirely. But reading the article itself makes it clear that it was largely written by someone associated with the company. An article with genuine Independent Content (or a journalist using their own words) would not use phrases like "the company has taken a unique direction to meet the demands of clients offering specialized managed IT services". That's corporate speak. There's no explanation of any "unique direction" and nothing of any substance or depth in the article. The entire article is corporate speak. The headings use phrases such as "An All-Embracing Vision" and "A True Driver of Excellence". This article isn't even close to containing Independent Content and is most definitely churnalism because it is a corporate brochure dressed up as real journalism. As for KyivPost, can you point to any part of that article that you believe contains the author's opinions? Again, it is classic churnalism and a template of these types of articles - history (make sure of humble beginnings), define problem, describe growth, describe current success, sprinkle some forward looking statements and quotations from execs. The only thing missing for a complete set is a photo with smiling people. I understand you have a different opinion, that's fine, but in my opinion you're kidding yourself if you believe these article meet the criteria for establishing notability.  HighKing++ 18:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep there are numerous sources, some of them are reliable and deep enough. Some of them are additional and helpful to understand the topic of the article. Concerning in-depth information on the company, here is a link to reliable KyivPost newspaper source with not CEO's citation but only a reportage: Kyivpost.--KressInsel (talk) 07:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , would you be so kind to point out which sources are reliabe and deep? Of course we occasionally use a minor source to verify a fact, but then, which sources do establish notability? Vexations (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I found this one: Kyivpost--KressInsel (talk) 09:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , We're looking for significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. You mentioned numerous sources, some of them are reliable and deep enough. The article you cite as the example of that dedicates barely 15% of its content (20 sentences) to NIX and that includes a quote from the senior vice-president for corporate clients. Sorry, but we need more than that. Vexations (talk) 13:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I would add that I already commented on that source above and pointed out that it does not contain Independent Content and fails WP:ORGIND.  HighKing++ 13:55, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have written some thoughts on that source above--Wellring (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Concerning the claims that some sources of the article don't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Hm, it's not true that in 100% cases all the sources in Wikipedia articles should meet. At least the practice tells that. Take a look at any not-a-stub Wikipedia article and you will find numerous sources that fail to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. That because such sources support/cite some specific facts or numbers in a particular article. --KressInsel (talk) 07:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Response That's a very common misunderstanding. References are mainly within an article including to support facts and assertions within an article. But that doesn't mean that those references meet the standard required to establish notability of the topic. You can have an article with numerous references that don't meet the requirements for establishing notability. What we are concerned with here are identifying those references that meet the criteria for supporting notability and those references must meet the criteria in GNG/NCORP and those references must meet WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND and WP:SIGCOV in addition to being WP:RS. Also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - if you find other articles you believe don't have references that establish notability of the topic, nominate them.  HighKing++ 14:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * In fact, that's why I nominated this article (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cleveroad). It was cited as an notable example for another (similar) company, Cleaveroad. I don't think equivalence is a good argument, because it works both ways: If Cleaveroad should be kept because NIX is (supposedly) notable, then NIX should be deleted if Cleaveroad is not notable. Instead, look at what sources exist (beyond merely cited) and if the article is not supported by significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, then the subject is not notable, especially if it is not in some way unique, important, pioneering, or otherwise remarkable. Vexations (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , why do you consider Cleveroad to be a similar company? NIX Solutions is a pioneer of Ukrainian IT founded in 1994. It was #7 in the list of the largest Ukrainian IT-companies for 2019 (https://ain.ua/en/2019/02/12/top-50-ukrainian-it-companies/) and #6 for January 2020. The company employs about two thousand employees. --Wellring (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , try to come up with better sources and NIX can have an article. If those sources don't exist, no article; it's really as simple as that. Vexations (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. Puff piece with a lack of WP:RS. Dorama285 (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Although there are many mentions of the company, there is no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject (as shown by the source analysis above). Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 08:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.