Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telesciences


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Telesciences

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

I am nominating this page for deletion since notability has not been asserted. I did a Google News Archive search and saw several press releases. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be significant coverage from independent sources. I see that there are three potential references at the bottom of the page but cannot verify them as they are formatted. I would not mind withdrawing this if sources are provided. Unfortunately, it has been tagged since 2007 without being fixed. Cptnono (talk) 03:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, weakly. While the Google News hits are mostly dross about contracts announced and other routine business page reporting, I did find some general interest sources.   They seem to go back to 1967, which is unusual for a firm of this type.  The article has fairly obvious COI issues but the subject seems worthy.  - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep . Merge 279 Google News hits, 597 Google Books hits and 63 Google Scholar hits. Can the nominator show that not even one of these are significant? Abductive  (reasoning) 04:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I can. Most of them are press releases or solicited stories in Google News. Double check the articles and not just the result numbers. I actually did not see the scholar ones so will have to look into it.Cptnono (talk) 04:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Follow-up:
 * Google Books appear to be mainly directory listings. Many are on a single page so I assume they would not be sufficient to create an article off of and might be considered "trivial" or at least not significant coverage for the sake of the notability guidelines.
 * Many scholar hits are for "Telescience, a term that originated at NASA" and not the company. Please double check the results a little closer in the future.
 * I am not against the article if the company does meet the notability guidelines with the couple of good news hits (I assume there is more somewhere) and if the coverage in Books is considered significant. However, it should be reduced to a stub since it appears that there are not the sources needed to verify the bulk of it.Cptnono (talk) 05:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems that Telesciences was bought by Securicor in 1998. I don't know if it was spun back out, but how about merging it there? The article says it was bought by EDB Business Partner, so that could be another merge target. Also, Telesciences used to be Telematic, and Securicor Telesciences may have changed its name to Axiom, Inc. at some point. Its webpage claims it is now Ventraq when it put itself together with ACE*COMM and 10e Solutions. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ventraq was speedy deleted since it was just promotion. Telesciences appears to be a similar promotional/about us page. ACE*COMM is no good either. I would be shocked if the most recent company didn't meet WP:CORP but am not sure if there is significant coverage or not (haven't looked too hard). I don't mind a stub for them all but I am concerned about what appears to be a series of about us pages. A couple lines in a new article with the above company's redirected might work if we are looking at it in a purely inclusionist fashion. It could also all go until it meets at least some quality standard. Cptnono (talk) 06:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * One has to consider the notability of all the companies that preceded the current one. What about moving ACE*COMM to Ventraq, rewriting that article as a stub, and redirecting all the old names there? Abductive  (reasoning) 07:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That doesn't sound like a bad idea but I am having a hard time finding significant coverage on the companies. Ventraq in Google News shows press releases which are not a secondary source so should not be the basis for the article. When coupled with the Book searches, note number 5 at Notability might apply:
 * " ... directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources."
 * and Notability (organizations and companies)'s
 * "...Press releases; autobiographies; advertising for the company, corporation, organization, or group; and other works where the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people..." are not considered secondary.
 * We need significant coverage from secondary sources regarding these companies. If we get a handful of headlines I'm sure we can write at least a single line. So far I question if there is significant coverage but someone up above provided two sources and I have not gone through all of the other possible sources.
 * From the articles listed above, Telematics is redirected to an article about the term not a company. Securicor has a couple primarily about BT/Cable & Wireless. ACE*COMM has 0. EDB Business Partner is all about a single event (Jonas Bergling contraversey?). There isn't much coverage on any ofthese companies and it is a mess trying to tie it together. There might be an argument to remove them all even. If there is something out there covering it I am not against merging it together.Cptnono (talk) 07:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The articles describing the merges are enough. Merges are big news. Also, I saw a couple of solid refs decribing the line of business the company is in, plus its location in Laurel, MD. That should be enough for a stub for Ventraq. Abductive  (reasoning) 07:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you provide the sources for Ventraq? I'm not trying to be dense I just haven't seen secondary coverage mentioning Ventraq. Telesciences has a couple but it isn't signifigant. Mergers and aquasitions can be a big deal (if at least one is already big or they become big form it) but the coverage of any of them seems pretty weak. If we can't find secondary sources detailing the merger. I think that shows how notable it is (I'll of course strike that if it is my bad). It might be if they are all combined but I'm still not seeing it for a)Telesciences or b)Ventraq (with or without Telesciences mentioned).Cptnono (talk) 09:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Three Comm Companies Form Ventraq Brand. Abductive  (reasoning) 08:58, 16 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.