Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OneTick


 * 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 02:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

OneTick

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )


 * Delete Company spam. Non notable company/product using WP for promotion. HighKing (talk) 21:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - It certainly is a bit spammy. That aside, I can't find significant sources that suggest this product is notable. Whereas the company that makes the product might be notable, this product by itself is not. P. D. Cook  Talk to me! 18:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Recent revisions were to provide updated information regarding company (last update was from 2009). No more spammy than similar companies in same category/business (also with Wiki pages) Sybase, KX Systems, Streambase, Vhayu. LouisLovas  10:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by LouisLovas (talk • contribs)
 * The spaminess of the article can be fixed and isn't necessarily grounds for deletion. However, my concern is that the product in question isn't notable. Can you provide reliable sources that cover this product significantly (not trivially or in passing), thereby demonstrating its notability? P. D. Cook  Talk to me! 15:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Having now read the definition of Notable I understand better what is being sought. Yes, I can provide sources that cover the product. I will include in the page itself. LouisLovas  13:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by LouisLovas (talk • contribs)
 * I have revised the OneTick page to include referenced sources that cover the product per Wiki's Notability definition. I have also revised content pertaining to spaminess. Please advise. LouisLovas  22:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by LouisLovas (talk • contribs)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → B  music  ian  03:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Keep. New sources clearly demonstrate notability. JulesH (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as both non-notable and  entirely promotional; this is exactly the sort of writing we need to discourage; The sources added in  the rewriting are not  acceptable: the  Belianina paper is by the firms sales engineer, thus not independent evidence for anything; HFTR is not a true product review, but a straight press release; the other sources do not mention the product, but just the general approach.  And the awards are minor.       DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   06:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * (duplicate keep opinion) Keep.  Refined the description of product, company and key features removing any promotional aspect. Notability references are from university researchers (Dr. Creamer at Stevens Institute) his (downloadable) paper references the use of OneTick product in independently conducted analysis, R/Finance conference paper (Maria Belianina) has strict guidelines on content for participation - not promotional, OxFord University's use of OneTick in their DataLab is independent and mentioned reference and independent analyst reports (Aite Group) are (pay-for) downloadable reports.  LouisLovas  11:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by LouisLovas (talk • contribs)
 * comment As I read the papers, they make use of this along with other products, but they are not about this product. The market research paper is limited circulation and very difficult for anyone not in the industry to access.  I cannot tell from the Oxford press release whether this is principal software or just one of the many products in their laboratory. If the article should be kept, I will at least remove the promotionalist style and clarify what the references actually show. DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * keep Reading that this software has been launched by somebody that has worked for the most evil bank of the world makes me have some mixed feelings... but the software is indeed "notable." --Hiddenray (talk) 10:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable, reads like advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.14.218 (talk) 23:04, 12 June 2012 (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.