Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talend


 * 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   no consensus. A definitive close is made impossible in part by two things: the prevalence of SPAs, and the batch nomination. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 19:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Talend, Talend Open Studio

 * – (View AfD (View log  •  AfD statistics)

Non-notable tech business. Speedily deleted twice before as advertising. Current version shows some essentially trivial announcements circulated in IT-related sources but the first looks like a recirculated press release and the second is in fact a blog. Other sources are all IT industry related, not enough to confer general notability. Not sure that claiming to be the first commercial open source vendor of data integration software is a sufficient claim of historical or technical importance. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
 * delete nonnotable; one of many. Mukadderat (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Mukadderat says one of many. Which pages is he referring to? Talend is a company, Talend Open Studio an open source software project. Ydemontcheuil (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * keep Talend has been in business for 4 years and has 800 customers. The company is backed by several venture capital firms and has raised $20m in total . Talend's open source software is used by over 300,000 users in the world. Smerdis of Tlön invokes non-notable. Both open source and data integration are very relevant, not only to IT but also to business. Gartner says data integration is a $1.34b market and recognizes Talend as a Visionary in that field . Reconnaissance by Gartner and product reviews from eWeek, PCWorld  or InfoWorld  meet NSOFT criteria. Ydemontcheuil (talk) 12:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * — Ydemontcheuil (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Nevertheless, he has found good sources, and this isn't just a vote weighted on edit history length. Pcap ping  10:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * keep Talend meets notability criteria. I will be editing the article to add secondary sources listed above. Jim380 (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * — Jim380 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * keep Talend meets notability criteria. I wrote the original citation in August 2007 it was well balanced and certainly indicates that Talend has been a viable software company for many years. The client base continues to grow as does there news coverage and relevance in the software market. Talend is a leader in the Open Source Integration space and rarely does a mainstream article regarding this type of technology get published without a reference to them. The original post I wrote 2 years ago should stand. ShawnRog (talk) 09:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * — ShawnRog (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * keep Talend and expressor Interesting discussion here. Like Talend, expressor is a new entrant with substantial VC backing in the established market for data integration and ETL products -- a fact both companies can and have proven with numerous, industry-specific references.  An editor here noted that Talend has only received coverage in IT-related publications -- but those are exactly the kind of objective, secondary sources of information that not only confer notability within this IT market segment, but they are also the kind of secondary research buyers seek when evaluating a solution. (And since it competes in the same market, it is not surprising that expressor cited many of the same sources, such as Gartner, in its entry.) By deleting entries for companies such as Talend and expressor (not to mention other similar entries for Pentaho,Apatar and Jitterbit) for non-notability, you are ensuring that Wikipedia readers can only find information here on the largest vendors and products, and therefore get a skewed and inaccurate picture of objective reality. (Sccasey (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC))
 * — Sccasey (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete after reviewing the sources again, I see lots of press releases hyped up as "articles" and also passing mentions. The relentless focus of the SPAs doesn't help their cause.  Them  From  Space  07:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * keep Talend as it fulfills notability criteria. Also, ETL tools are gaining importance in the software industry these days. Talend (as a company) has Talend Open Studio (TOS) as an ETL tool, which has a nice use base (I can not comment on the numbers). Also, Talend Integration Studio, which is a licensed version of TOS, used for team development is gaining foothold in the industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vabhian (talk • contribs) 07:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge Talend Open Studio into Talend leaving a redirect, per WP:PRODUCT: "Information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy."  This seems to be Talend's only notable product, and Talend is not very long.  The guideline seems pretty clear on this one.  --Glenfarclas (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Talend as it fulfills notability criteria. I agree with comments above by SCCasey. I am really concerned that if we start removing younger and smaller vendors, or ones regarded as niche, that we go against the very spirit of Wikipedia. The only information is then about big established companies - the ones who least need it. Wikipedia is an important source of information for people trying to find out about young companies who may have less media coverage. We are restricting such companies potential by restricting their coverage, and I think that has uncomfortable legal considerations. Stating that tech press and blogs are somehow less worthy than general press shows ignorance of how the media actually works. Tech press drives coverage and opinion in general press, and is usually better informed and earlier informed about new tech trends. My job as a tech analyst involves briefing journalists that work for general press. Nether do we just want to know about people/companies that have some great historical importance. We need to know about those we're currently talking about or are emerging. Wikipedia is new media, not Who's Who or the Encyclopaedia Britannica. It fulfils a very important role in being current and wider ranging in the knowledge it contains because it's not restricted by heavy editing, page count or publishing deadlines. If Talend get deleted then there's a large number of minor actors, celebs and so on that should go because they don't fulfil your worthiness criteria either. --Telesperience (talk) 16:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC) — Telesperience (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment: Wikipedia is not here to fulfil anyone's perceived need for publicity, or to provide a free web host for advertising material to give "younger vendors" a fighting chance against "big established companies". - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Wikipedia's editing privileges are not here to fulfill anyone's bias or prejudice against tech companies or products. - Ydemontcheuil (talk) 13:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Then a real Wikipedia apparatchik, Ihcoyc, decided that enough was enough, and who were these people who dared write about products and companies he did not know himself. Ihcoyc is a real Wikipedia expert specializing in religious content, and also an attorney from Indiana (per his profile). He actually wrote an essay The presumption of non-notability for Internet related, computing, and services businesses, in which he proclaims:
 * keep Talend meets notability criteria. Talend is very well known in the commercial open source community.   Rossturk (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC) — Rossturk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Talend Open Studio: it has an eWeek review, an InfoWorld head-to-head with another product, etc. Slightly weaker keep for the Talend company. Has news articles about it in Network World, Computer Weekly, etc. The news stories on the company are not so in depth, but there's quite a few of them, and the article can be used to describe the less notable software this company produces. Pcap ping  10:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I've spotted some off-wiki canvassing. It's here.  Them  From  Space  17:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I presume that a business or product is unlikely to be notable if it:
 * Relates to technology, software, computing, or the internet;
 * Is a service or publicity business; or
 * Provides goods or services to other businesses rather than the general public.

So here goes Ihcoyc, who cannot tolerate stuff he personally does not know about, and he slams the two Talend pieces with a request to delete:

His claims: that references like eWeek, PCWorld or InfoWorld, or even Gartner,  do not count. If it does not appear in the Indiana Bar Association Gazette, it isn’t relevant to the Wikipedia readers.
 * I can't say I disagree, except perhaps with the "apparatchik" label. Letting people push their essays as guidelines in AfD got us here. And to a current arbitration case on software AfDs. Maybe User:Ihcoyc should be a party too, albeit for a different essay... Pcap ping  17:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep A quick search on Books.google.com shows that this is mentioned in “Principles of Information Systems” by Ralph M. Stair, George W. Reynolds (2009), “Fundamentals of Information Systems” by the same authors (2008), as well as “Data Warehousing and Knowledge Discovery: 11th International Conference” by Torben Bach Pedersen, a Min Tjoa, Mukesh K. Mohania (2009). I am concerned about the nominator’s behavior, since he has stated a software program is not notable unless it would be notable in 500 years, as well as making a number of contributions to an article trying to change what software satisfies Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. Samboy (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2009 (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.