Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Horizon Group


 * 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 keep. Since it's been suggested that the article still needs work, I'll stick a Cleanup AfD tag on it. Deor (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

One Horizon Group

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Sources provided are press releases, press release reposts or short blurbs written from a press release or another type of primary source. As a company with only $9.1 million in revenues, it is unlikely to be notable. Some quick searches also suggest this to be the case regarding a lack of sufficient source material. The trademark symbols, promotion and language like "our proprietary software" suggest it is a self-written product brochure. CorporateM (Talk) 17:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (report)  @ 18:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (articulate)  @ 18:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete: for copyrightvio, portions of the text copied from the corp's 10Q. Vrac (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 11:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 11:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete or stubbify due to copyright and promotional content concerns. (Several paragraphs are lifted from various company documents.)  However, the company is definitely notable  which is not surprising since it is NASDAQ listed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep The comment from the nominator states "As a company with only $9.1 million in revenues, it is unlikely to be notable". This is a US NASDAQ listed company so its press releases, SEC filings etc. are all notable and audited by the SEC.  This Nomination for deletion is so erroneous that it indicates that the nominator has not even read the article in question.  The comment on copyrightvio states that the information on this wiki is taken from this companys SEC filed 10-Q.  This is not a violation as the wiki is FOR this company so has full rights to all matters filed with the SEC on its behalf.  Please indicate where promotional text is not compliant with wiki policy and it will be adjusted to comply. The text regarding the company technology, its history, its products are accurate and not promotional but factual. This is not a violation of any wiki policy. TheOne AndOnly (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC) — TheOne AndOnly (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I looked up the Wikipedia policies on this copyright issue. SEC filings are public domain documents so there is no copyright violation.  The verbatim copy of the text is, however, plagiarism.  The source must be properly attributed.  The promotional issues with this article are painfully obvious.  Suggested reading: WP:NOTPROMOTION, WP:ARTSPAM, WP:NPOV.  The article could easily have been speedily deleted for blatant advertising.  I see that you have no other edits on Wikipedia, I suggest you also read about the policy on conflicts of interest. Vrac (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed there is no coyright infringement. Cannot see how can the use of some text from the companys website and/or the companys filings can be construed as plagarism.  To use the companys own text on the company wiki is not the wrongful appropriation of the text as such text is the companys own, original work.  Information about companies and products is carefully written in an objective and unbiased style in accordance with WP:NOTPROMOTION.  There is clearly no text promoting the company in their wiki and complies fully with the WP:ARTSPAM policy.  Stating the company product range in a neutral, encyclopedic and unbiased way is clear in the article and could not be considered as not being neutral.  The content is focused on summarizing, informing the would be readers and contains many references to independent news media and SEC filings.  There is no advertising in any text and it appears to be written in an unbiased and transparent manner.TheOne AndOnly (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC) — TheOne AndOnly (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. It is correct as this user has made few or no other edits outside this topic as this is a new account since the previous account name was in breach of the wiki naming convention for Usernames implying shared use WP:UN and was recently blocked.TheOne AndOnly (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ANY time you fail to acknowledge the source, it is plagiarism. Furthermore, even if it wasn't unethical to copy and paste someone else's writing and pass it off as your own, text taken from other sources will generally not be written in a tone appropriate for Wikipedia.  One Horizon Group has one aim when writing (promote self or fulfill regulatory requirements), and we have another (write an encyclopedia).  As I already said, I think the company is notable.  But, text copied from the company website/SEC filings is not an appropriate way to write an article.  It would be better to start over completely, sticking exclusively to whatever information can be gleaned from third party sources, writing everything in your own words. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Rewrote using verifiable, external, third party sources such as magazines. Removed SEC company information and website/corporate news references and or content.  Reviewed other Wiki pages from similar companies to better understand what is deemed acceptable and or encyclopedic by the community.TheOne AndOnly (talk) 04:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Further to the helpful guidance of CorporateM regarding the need to delete anything that is copy/pasted from another source, remove all the trademark symbols, remove any primary sources published by the company and make sure all that remains is utterly neutral information cited to credible. The wiki page has been updated accordingly.TheOne AndOnly (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't !vote multiple times. Vrac (talk) 21:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi TheOneandonly. Do you mind refactoring your comment to remove the "Keep" vote? It is inappropriate to vote in an AfD discussion regarding a company you work at, and even more inappropriate to vote twice in the discussion. Using "Comment" is more appropriate.
 * Regarding whether the company qualifies for an article, one thing we look for is two in-depth stories in credible, independent sources. Technically these can be books or something else, but in most cases they will be in-depth profiles in press articles written and bylined by a professional journalist. Also, can you confirm if the $9 million in revenues listed is correct? Technically speaking even small companies can have an article if they are famous for something, but it is very unlikely for a $9 million company to be so. Most of the sources look like press releases or press release reposts, which cannot be used. CorporateM (Talk) 22:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Noted on the second vote, used "Comment" instead.
 * Added references to three independent journalists writing about the company.
 * Confirm revenues of $9.1m from SEC filings of company Form_10-K, page 21.
 * Removed reposts and or company press releases to ensure that all external references are from independent 3rd parties.TheOne AndOnly (talk) 23:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC) This wiki article was completely rewritten using verifiable, external, third party sources such as magazines. Removed SEC company information and website/corporate news references and or content. Reviewed other Wiki pages from similar companies to better understand what is deemed acceptable and or encyclopedic by the community.TheOne AndOnly (talk) 07:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The relisting means the discussion has been re-listed in order to attract new voters. Re-voting is not required. Can you please refactor again to prevent voting repeatedly. CorporateM (Talk) 16:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, removed the new vote as guided.TheOne AndOnly (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - I have cleaned a bunch of the promotional language and removed the plagiarism. The article is still rather poor, but good enough to keep now given that the company is obviously notable as indicated by the extensive RS coverage it has received (linked in my original comment).  --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Article is much less promotional and more factual and Encyclopedic.TheOne AndOnly (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep The company is notable with some evidence for its notability coming from its listing in NASDAQ. From what little I have read about it, the company is not doing so well and its stock is currently tanking.  It probably needs further editing to more neutrally state it actual position. --I am One of Many (talk) 07:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I am not impressed by the article's references, which are all to rather minor sources. But this is a global company, publicly owned and NASDAQ listled, with the listings at Bloomberg and Yahoo Finance and the New York Times business listings that publicly-traded companies usually get. I think this makes it notable. --MelanieN (talk) 23:26, 4 February 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.