Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rimini Street (2nd nomination)


 * 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 of the debate was delete. &mdash;  F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( [ TALK ] )  03:43, Jan. 29, 2006

Rimini Street (2nd nomination)
Previously deleted (see Articles for deletion/Rimini Street), but rewritten in a manner enough different that it probably doesn't qualify as a speedy. I'd say delete, as it doesn't seem to pass WP:CORP. It's just a small startup like thousands of others. -R. fiend 16:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is the second time I've voted keep on this + two keep votes for Seth Ravin. Given the amount of votes we have had concerning the life and times of Seth Ravin, I have come to believe that Seth Ravin is the most important businessman in the world, perhaps since business was invented. No start-up is small if Seth Ravin did the starting up. Life takes on new meaning when Seth Ravin is in the picture. Are there are other companies that Seth Ravin was involved with that are not yet covered here? Many of us now feel that we need articles on everything that Seth Ravin has ever touched. I wish I lived on Rimini Street with Seth Ravin. Thanks for letting me vote again to keep Seth Ravin. I feel all warm and tingly. Don't you? -- JJay 16:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Advertisement. CalJW 16:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Hirudo 16:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep,obviously. I wrote it myself so I know it isn't an ad. Even though this is an extremely new startup, it has already attracted enough independent media attention (including Forbes and eWeek) to satisfy WP:CORP, and numbers among its customers such heavy hitters as Toyota Financial Services, the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, and Peregrine Systems. I'm shocked to see this renominated for no good reason. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, because there is no assertion how it would meet WP:CORP or any other notability standard. The article merely notes that it's a startup founded by the exodus of some employees, and that they are now buying up other companies. Companies get founded, and they sometimes buy others together with their customer base. That is common. Maybe come back in five years, when the dust has settled. Pilatus 18:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Pilatus, my friend, are you familiar with WP:CORP #1? "A company or corporation is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:  1. The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.  Excludes ads, reprints of press releases, op ed pieces and the like.  There are three press references on the artice already, including one from eWeek and one from Forbes. One of them has as its main subject litigious-sounding noises made at the company by Siebel and the other has as its main subject the acquisition of an ERP/CRM company by Rimini Street. Thus the article passes WP:CORP #1 --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I did consult WP:CORP, and one article in Forbes and a short paragraph in eWeek doesn't pass the "non-trivial" bar and goes against the spirit of that guideline. You may disagree. Employee exoduses are not uncommon, as are corporate acquisitions. Once Rimini Street has extablished itself somewhat and gets its second round of funding we can look again, but now it really doesn't deserve more than a footnote. Pilatus 21:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Both articles are specifically about Rimini Street and are non-trivial in size and in coverage. This alone passes WP:CORP.  Why would we need to know whether the company will thrive?  This isn't a business directory, it's an encyclopedia and we write about what other people are writing about.  As far as Forbes and sWeek, neither of them negligible sources, are concerned, that includes Rimini Street. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep- it DOES meet WP:CORP, but not having a customer base doesn't make me terribly enthusiastic about it -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 20:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It has Toyota, Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, Peregrine Systems and Restoration Hardware, to name four large customers. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Recently deleted article recreated. Not especially significant or notable startup. --kingboyk 21:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Pilatus. A lot of potential with some write-ups about said potential in notable publications. I don't think this meets WP:CORP.  This is NOT a vote on Seth Ravin or on the business issue surrounding third party support for Siebel products in the wake of the Oracle acquisition. This is a vote solely on the Rimini Street article. Crunch 22:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete "2005 startup" automatically spells NONNOTABLE to me. D e nni &#9775;  01:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as reposted material. It doesn't matter that it's been reworded, imo; consensus is that it doesn't belong on WP and repeated renomination until you get a keep result is ridiculous. Stifle 12:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It does matter. The CSD policy is very clear. It must be "substantially identical, and not merely a new article on the same subject". Say what you will about Rimini Street, this is not a speedy delete and Tony has made a great effort to develop the article. -- JJay 14:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've just added three more articles, one from Wall Street Journal. This company is easily satisfying WP:CORP now, although the original article on this subject didn't come close, so I think we'd need some exceptional arguments to delete at this stage. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per Tony. The fact of it having been previously deleted does not make it notable, per JJay's amusing and ingeniously self-referential reasoning, but the fact of it passing WP:CORP through significant media coverage does - even if I do think that at this stage it's "just another startup, just like all the rest".  I still think nothing should be added to the 'pedia until at leasta  year after it happens, to allow for proper perspective.  The scrabble by companies to get on Wikipedia as part of their startup marketing program is a real concern to me.  But Tony wrote this, and Tony has better things to do with his time than do other people's spamming for them, so in the end I'm trusting to his judgment re the company even if it looks to me like a close call.  Possible merge to Seth Ravin as a compromise solution. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] AfD? 14:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Have to agree with Pilatus here. This company is very new, not particularily large and does not have any great achievements. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. 2005 startup, with no customer base and no product(?), plus article reads like an advertisement. --timecop 02:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete advert. Jmax- 03:02, 29 January 2006 (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.