Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Onyx (software)

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep --Allen3 talk 12:20, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Onyx (software)
This article looks like an advertising page. Perhaps it could be changed to make it more encyclopedic and less pov, but as it stands, it should probably be deleted. Shoaler 3 July 2005 12:05 (UTC)
 * Keep and make npov - It's POV and looks like advertising, but that's nothing that can't be fixed. It's traded on nasdaq, and a google search shows 9,070 hits on "Onyx Software Corporation". Seems notable to me. -- Phroziac (talk) 3 July 2005 14:39 (UTC)
 * Keep Expand and rewrite. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 15:38 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's a perfectly notable company after all. If it reads like an advert, then it needs rewriting, not deleting. UkPaolo 3 July 2005 19:43 (UTC)
 * Delete: Advertising. No, UkPaolo, if it reads like an advert, then it is an advert, and that violates the deletion policy.  If you wish to rewrite it to make it NPOV and to give it some specifics, then that's well and good, and we can vote to keep.  However, saying, essentially, "Because it could be worthwhile, leave it," means ignoring policy and keeping an article that violates the deletion policy.  I do not wish to fix this article, and Cleanup won't.  Geogre 3 July 2005 21:00 (UTC)
 * comment: I agree, advertising violates the deletion policy. My point was that it is a notable company, in question - as Phroziac said, it gets a number of Google hits, and is traded on Nasdaq. If there's an article on a notable topic, which is not written to a NPOV, then the way to deal with it, in my opinion, is for it to be rewritten. That is exactly what my statement was meant to mean. It's not advertising alone which means it shouldn't be deleted, it's the first part too, that it is also notable. It looks as though Alex12 3 has now done such work, and my congratulations go to him. UkPaolo 3 July 2005 21:47 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree with you that people cleaning it are to be congratulated. I don't think it's clear of advertising, yet.  I prefer Alex12 3's other idea, though: creating an article at Onyx Software Corporation, which is a preferrable location.  The cleaning still leaves the total solution, stuff in there, where an NPOV article would just say what they make, how it's used, and facts about success of the company, so I can't change my vote.  I worry that some people are campaigning so vigorously and calling names so liberally whenever anyone votes to delete that people are now afraid to cast the vote.  An article that breaks the deletion policy should be deleted.  If that article gives people an idea for a good article, they should write it.  A damaged article should go to cleanup, and a short one to RfE.  Geogre 4 July 2005 02:22 (UTC)
 * Campaigning so vigorously? Calling names so liberally? I don't see that going on in this particular VfD... the thing that could most be construed as "name calling" that seems to have gone on was with your remark directed at myself! Anyhow, I fail to see how people are going to be afraid to cast their vote. And if you were referring to myself as "campaigning so vigorously" then I can assure you I have much better things to spend my time on. I have no particular interest in this article whatsoever, I was merely making my personal viewpoint to keep. UkPaolo 4 July 2005 08:50 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have made edits to the page in question, attempting to remove all promotion and POV. Pending a consensus to keep the page, I will be moving it to Onyx Software Corporation. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 21:44 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what Splash is saying. I wouldn't move this page until consensus, but there's nothing wrong with creating a new article with valid information in it, no matter what.  Cleaning up an article while it's on VfD is not only ok, it's actually a virtuous thing.  At present, the article still seems fairly promotional, so I can't change my vote. Geogre 4 July 2005 02:22 (UTC)
 * I had interpreted Alex12 3's statement to mean he planned to execute the move (and keep) sooner than the conclusion of the VfD. The more usual way to phrase what was meant would be as a vote to move/rename. Improving an article, to whatever extent is absolutely what VfD is about, I agree, but I thought the comment meant that unchanged article, save for its VfD tag being removed, was going to be summarily moved to a different title before conclusion of the VfD. If that's not the intention, then I have no problem at all, so long as the vote remains uncontroversial-Splash July 4, 2005 11:55 (UTC)
 * That's how I inerpreted Alex's statement too. Pending a consensus to keep the page surely means "until the decision to keep the page", thus implying that the move would be made now. Anyhow, thats all clarified now, and for the record, if the page survives VfD I would agree with Alex's proposed move. UkPaolo 4 July 2005 12:01 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't really do that until the VfD is fully concluded after 5 days; there's no formal procedure for a speedy keep even though it is used on rare occasions.-Splash July 4, 2005 00:03 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy is that edits and cleanups can proceed as usual despite an article being on VfD. It is, however, improper to move the article, which, as I said, I would not be doing until (unless) a consensus to keep the article is established. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 07:24 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. See my reply above. -Splash July 4, 2005 11:55 (UTC)


 * Weak keep notable firm, but article is an ad which has been left largely unmitigated. -Splash July 4, 2005 00:01 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.