Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxagile LLC


 * 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 "keep" opinions do not address, or are at odds with, our inclusion rules documented notably in WP:GNG.  Sandstein  10:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Oxagile LLC

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about a possibly non-notable company, where no reliable, independent sources seem to exist. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - MrX 13:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I recommended against an A7 on this because it had sources and felt it warranted sufficient investigation first. However, having looked through all the sources given, they're all self-published, primary or press releases (ie: not independent coverage), none of which can be used to establish notability. The only borderline exception is this Microsoft source which talks about its partnership with the company, though even that has the air of a press release about it without actually using that term. Can't find anything else of note on the web. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   14:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. In my opinion, it would be unfair to delete this article! In Wikipedia there are a plenty of articles about organizations without appropriate, notable sources, but nevertheless they have the right to existence! Moreover, this article has reliable sources that prove rewards received by the company, and its partnership with Microsoft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zorexoc (talk •  contribs) 17:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)  — Zorexoc (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * If you know of other articles on Wikipedia that do not have proper sources to establish notability, feel free to nominate them for deletion as well. And just because a source is reliable, it does not mean it is significant coverage or it is independent. You need all three of significant + independent + reliable. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   17:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Otherwise numerous published articles should be deleted from this free online encyclopedia, not only about companies. And what for to do that? Maybe just this information will be useful for other people! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnaBV (talk • contribs) 21:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep . I think you are very strict about the sources. They cannot be called insignificant and unreliable. And I can assure you that the company is growing and operating worldwide, and as new independent sources appear they will be added to the article at sight.
 * I find WP:42 and User:Uncle G/On notability are good essays to read as to what is required to establish notability. And yes, articles are deleted all the time because they are not notable right now - Windows Blue was deleted last week and Windows 8 was deleted several times, and protected against recreation, until its notability was unquestionable. It doesn't matter if the information is useful - if I added an article on WP for me to go to the shops and get some cat food tomorrow, it would be very useful (well, for me at least), but totally unsuitable of being in an encyclopedia. There's nothing wrong with waiting a while before creating an article. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   23:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Remember, WP: Other Stuff Exists is not a valid reason to keep an article.  Each article's notability must be considered on its own.  And unless something can be found to the contrary, this company is not notable.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howicus (talk • contribs) 00:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Why do you think that this company isn´t notable? If you don’t know about it, that doesn’t mean that nobody all over the world know and consider this company worth mentioning in free encyclopedia. By the way, this encyclopedia is intended for providing information to people, if they don’t know something. That’s why wikipedia is so popular! And in this case why do you grudge providing there an article for this international company, global provider of application development, which business activity is growing day by day? I insist absolutely that this article has the right to existence! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnaBV (talk • contribs) 12:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Why do I think that this company isn't notable? Because I cannot find significant enough coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources! I've stated above some very good essays for you to read. Instead of stomping your foot and crying here, you should read them carefully, then concentrate on improving the article and adding better sources. Then more established editors may come along, see the improvements in the article, and gain a consensus to keep the article - and yes, I'm willing to listen to convincing arguments and change my mind too. As it currently stands, you have not cited a single Wikipedia policy which states why it should be kept, so your chances of preserving it don't look good. As it is, the company's main claim to fame in the outside world is that it won an award for an iPhone app once. That's not really enough.
 * Does the company have any mentions in cNet or TechCrunch? Have you had any coverage in national newspapers such as The Guardian or magazines such as PC Magazine that are not press releases? If you have, you need to get them referenced in the article ASAP, especially newspaper coverage (as a general rule of thumb I find if a corporation doesn't have numerous articles about them in the national press, they probably aren't notable). I feel I have been perfectly lenient here, as without my intervention the article may have been speedy deleted and you won't even be given a chance to keep it. Go and read the essays, learn about notability and verifiability, fix the article, and we'll all be a lot better off. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   13:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I absolutely agree with those who want to keep this article. I find the information helpful, and the company is not small, operates worldwide, has rewards. I think this article shouldn’t be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladimir5642K (talk • contribs) 12:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)  — Vladimir5642K (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - Unfortunately, the article doesn't meet our inclusion standards for this encyclopedia. Also, single purpose accounts whose only purpose is to !vote in a CfD create an appearance of WP:MEATPUPPETRY or WP:SOCKPUPPETRY. I don't know if that is the case here, but your !vote is likely to discounted becuase this is your only contribution toward building the encyclopedia. - MrX 14:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. To my mind, this article should be kept. It´s free online encyclopedia, and I find this information and the sources adequate for being placed in wikipedia. I think the inclusion standards should not be so strict. As for this article, the information looks credible, as well as the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UserUSA123 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)  — UserUSA123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete not notable. No evidence of notable accomplishments. Being a MSGold Partner is not enough for notability, nor is a award for developing ringtones. Essentially are the refs are undisguised PR.  DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as not notable and blatant promotion. I can't find any coverage outside the SF Chronicle piece and that was reporting on a 22nd place in a league table by bestwebdesignagencies.com that looks more like a commercial agency than a genuinely independent organisation. As above MS Gold partner is not enough either. And the SPA creation and support here leave a bad taste. Mcewan (talk) 13:50, 9 January 2013 (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.