Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sensory, Inc.


 * 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Sensory, Inc.

 * – ( View AfD View log )

speedy deleted 4x. Delete and salt. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC) I believe a previous speedy does not qualify as a discussion which would give rationalle for g4. In addition, a speedy delete does not prevent recreation, as they can just create it again. Im hoping for something more binding via this discussion. I will revert your speedy so the discussion can continue and an admin can take binding action. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * COMMENT: If already speedy deleted, then simply nominate it under CSD G4. I've taken the liberty to do so.--Ctoshw (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * According to the user's talk page, another post for soapboxing, advertising or promotion by the user will result in a blocking. A speedy deletion nomination doesn't hold any less power to prevent the user from reposting. However, it WILL get the article off wikipedia faster.--Ctoshw (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I put the warning there just a few min ago. indeed the g4 criteria specifically excludes previous speedies. So If you wish to nominate via a7/g11 I think you can, but I think there is no harm in letting it sit for a while while the discussion plays out so it can be a binding decision or salted. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

After the article was originally posted it was recommended for speedy delete citing G11. After that I changed the article content to be much more neutral and add couple references.
 * Comment/Response/Questions: -- Disclosure: I’m the article creator ~ Octavius SV

After those changes it was next speedy delete citing A7. After that I made further edits and linked to other Wikipedia articles/entries/page to demonstrate its importance and relevance to the topics, specifically speech recognition and speech synthesis.

Forgive me I haven’t entered a new article before I have limited Wikipedia editing experience. I’m trying to write a legitimate article of a company that as some major significances and importance within speech recognition and speech synthesis fields.

Sensory, Inc is mentioned on several other Wikipedia entries, Forrest Mozer, Texas Instruments, ESS Technology.

Furthermore Forrest Mozer is one of the founders of Sensory, Inc. He is one of the foremost experts in the speech recognition and speech synthesis fields hold 17 patents in the field. Given that and Sensory, Inc pervasiveness in the speech recognition and speech synthesis I think that makes Sensory, Inc. relevant and important to the speech recognition and speech synthesis topics and overall. Especially now consider this field and industry is getting so much attention with the popularity of consumer voice control technologies like SIRI.

Moreover, I’m confused as to there are thousands of companies with Wikipedia entries/pages/article. What makes it Sensory, Inc entry so appalling that it needs to be deleted?

Again, I’m trying to create a neutral entry about Sensory that has relevant and important, especially to the speech recognition and speech synthesis topics.

I’m open to feedback, suggestion and help to make it a worth entry. What’s the best way to make it important (non-A7) with having too much hyperbole then falling into being too much like advertising/promotion (G11)? ~ Octavius SV (talk) 06:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * reply on your talk page. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm not entirely unreasonable; if a software product or business goes back to the 8-bit era it stands a better chance of being historically significant; snd I'm also willing to accept informal sources that were considered as reliable as it gets back then.  I definitely don't like the first sentence; it needs to be a lot more informative and specific.  Has the Commodore Zone been treated as a reliable source before? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep in accord with Smerdis' argument. We don't agree that often at AfD, but I am glad to concur with hem that there is a place for informal sources. For subjects where that's the best we can get, and the subjects seems important, and the material verifiable, I think that's enough justification for a comprehensive encyclopedia .  DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - The article has an article from the San Jose Business Jornal. One of the ir products is covered in detail here at PC Week.  Also covered in trade press.  I suspect there's probably offline sources from earlier but these suffice to demonstrate notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * nominator comment I am quite conflicted about this article. In principle, I agree with some of the keep rationale's above that while normal RS may be lacking, this company does have some inherent notability and importance, we may have to take what we can get. That being said, the 4x speedy and recreate really raises red flags for me. I have had some discussions with the creator on their talk page, and they claim not to have COI, but my experience has shown that very few disinterested editors have the urge to recreate 4x when being deleted without asking any questions etc. Additionally, the same editor went through and wikilinked the article everywhere (which admittedly, could be innocent as avoiding an orphaned page, but smells a bit like spamvertizement.) I am starting to lean towards a weak keep, but cannot shake the feeling that we are getting astro-turfed. I guess better to let a guilty man go free than imprison an innocent one though. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Speedy deletions are, by nature, done without much in the way of discussion because they meet the narrow criteria for speedy deletion. G11 does not preclude notability; it simply means the article was unambiguously promotional to the point where only a fundamental rewrite could cure the problem thus the deletion.  A7 can be caused by an inexperienced editor; it's very easy to write an article and fail to mention why the subject is notable, and it is very common for new articles to be completely unsourced.  Even if the article creator has a conflict of interest, this version of the article is not irredeemable spam, and as pointed out above, coverage in reliable sources which negates the need to expand into the quasi-reliable sources arena.  -- Whpq (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2012 (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.