Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orange & Bronze Software Labs


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Orange &amp; Bronze Software Labs

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Not notable. I was not able to find any significant coverage in reliable sources. It is a real company, according to the Philippine government. Wronkiew (talk) 05:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per original reason given. I tried to find a notable source for the article in order to save it and I couldn't find anything. Fails WP:CORP. Beano (talk) 05:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Can't you see the official website? or at least try searching Google or Yahoo....the page is not yet completed and its references are not yet finished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supremo106 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

And what credible sources do you refer to and where do you look in to? Orange & Bronze has top clients in the Philippines if you try searching it in google or yahoo...how come you couldnt find any? in its homepage alone, it is linked to several other webrings and pages Supremo106 (talk) 06:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The notability guideline to which Beano refers is WP:CORP. It requires a nontrivial reference in a reliable secondary source, which is properly cited in the article. So far, only internal Orange and Bronze sources have been cited, which is why this article fails the notability guideline at this time. -- Nsevs •  Talk  06:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nsevs is correct on this. Sources to prove notability and satisfy WP:CORP must be third party and prove notability. Beano (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

How about the current third-party links Ive added now, are they enough? Supremo106 (talk) 06:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I would say that none of those sources provide nontrivial coverage of the company. Many of those links are for business directories, which are specifically excluded in WP:CORP. Other links are in the same vein. -- Nsevs •  Talk  07:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The only link that helps to establish notability is the OS Summit speaker bio, but it's not enough by itself. The easiest way to establish notability would be to point to an in-depth article about the company in national media. For a "pioneer in software development best practices" with a "respected name in the software industry" and a "reputation for accomplishing difficult software projects", it shouldn't be difficult to find. Wronkiew (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   -- VG &#x260E; 16:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.   -- VG &#x260E; 16:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Based on what's in the article so far, this is a heavy duty WP:ADVERT for an otherwise non-notable outsourcing shop, failing WP:CORP. VG &#x260E; 16:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with VasileGaburici. This does show WP:ADVERT. Beano (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I have erased contents that are "Advertisements" in nature..could all of you review it it at least. Thanks. Supremo106 (talk) 01:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

*Delete. Even in its present form, it lacks notability. Some of the statements come from the owner's personal blog, and it is not mentioned in prominent independently-published sources such as broadsheets, news websites, and even television. Starczamora (talk) 04:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, per Starczamora. Beano (talk) 05:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ey, great wiki administrators and I think a fellow Filipino who writes and protects the philippine entertainment articles, Ive added a publication where O&B is featured, in Globe Telecom's MASIGASIG Magazine, Nov. 2007 Issue. I think it is a notable secondary reference... Thanks. Supremo106 (talk) 07:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, IF, and only IF (since you guys are the God in this site), it is decided that the article should be kept, does this deletion discussion would cease to exist? this is publicly viewable in the net and that it could undermine the company that is being discussed. This discussion is displayed on top search results in google and yahoo that could affect the company's name..Just a logical concern, though. Hope you guys can respond asap Supremo106 (talk) 07:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Here are the links of the said Magazine here in the Philippines, so you all can check and may settle this issue asap so I can organize the Article more... Globe Telecom's Masigasig Magazine - November 2007 Issue: Pages 9 -10 : Article: "Blazing New Trails" Words by: Ruth M. Floresca. For Magazine reference See http://www.sme.globe.com.ph/GlobeCSME/View/MasigasigOnline.aspx / Globe's MASIGASIG Online]], [/ PDF File of GLOBE MASIGASIG November 2007 Issue: Pages 9 -10 : "Blazing New Trails" [[User:Supremo106|Supremo106] (talk) 09:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, we do not play God. Wikipedia is built on consensus, and please practice civility. Starczamora (talk) 14:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Masigasig is way, way too press release-y to me even if it's print material, in the same way that it's like claiming notability on the basis of having had guested on Rated K or Sharon Cuneta's Sunday evening show. And isn't it just too easy to contact press people and just hand out some self-written press releases? (The artice, btw, still reads as too ad-like to me, it needs to be much, much more neutral than that. And, by the way, if you happen to work in this company, please read WP's policy on conflict of interest, the article reads like it was written by an insider.) We need something which has more substance such as, say, the 6 o'clock/11 o'clock news, so you'll need to look for something like the business section of newspapers (as long as it's not on the "press releases" section, which usually precede the classified ads). Having said that...I'm from the IT field, and to me the more notable Pinoy IT companies would be something along the lines of Ayala's IT company (can't remember the name :P ), Joey Gurango's company (the start-up he created after he left Microsoft his ERP/CRM company which later became MS's premier ERP/CRM product) or the mother company that owns the Netopia franchise to name a few. Having said that, I'm voting on a delete for this article, notability is not yet established for these and the preceding reasons put forward by starczamora. --- Tito Pao (talk) 15:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The Masigasig article might be enough to meet the notability guidelines. The publisher is independent from Orange and Bronze. The author is some Ruth M. Floresca, who claims to be an independent journalist and has written articles on other topics. It is sort of "in-depth". Is there any reason to believe that this magazine does not do sufficient fact-checking? I guess I can't flip my vote, since I nominated this AfD, but I'm leaning towards keep. Wronkiew (talk) 04:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Real, but not notable. Horselover Frost (talk) 03:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The single article, for me, is enough to establish notability and keep the article. Starczamora (talk) 06:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My only issue with Masigasig as a source is that, at times, it includes really small enterprises that are themselves not as notable as bigger corporations. This is why I brought up the Rated K comparison. In addition, Masigasig is published by Globe and is included supposedly as a "free" insert with the Philippine franchise of "Entrepreneur". This is why I'm not at ease in considering it as a reliable source...yet. --- Tito Pao (talk) 11:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we should assume good faith on the publication. I think Masigasig looks like a "trade publication." Starczamora (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * So what's the decision? So I should further know what to do with the article Supremo106 (talk) 07:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete A single article in a free insert? 100,000 of companies could make that claim. I see no real evidence of notability. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:27, 26 October 2008 (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.