Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tenex Software Solutions


 * 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Tenex Software Solutions

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A company which fails the criteria at WP:CORP, both in depth and in breadth. This is a small company, under 20 employees, not publicly traded. It specializes in providing election software for electronic pollbooks etc.. The only coverage it has received is local news about some glitches in local elections that used it in Ohio in November 2015 (two counties only) and Florida (one county only) in August 2014. None of the coverage is about the company per se but about the glitches and merely mentions the company with at most one or two sentences. Much of the coverage about the glitches with which this article had been peppered did not even mention the company's name. I can find no independent published mainstream sources focusing in depth on the company itself. Note that unusually for company articles, this one was not created to advertise the company but rather as an attempt at an "exposé". Voceditenore (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  18:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  18:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 01:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations state 1.) depth of coverage 2.) audience and 3.) independence of sources as a primary criteria for determination of notability. I believe the sources below meet all of these guidelines.
 * While Wikipedia states sole coverage from a single local media source is not reason for notability, the sources below from multiple local/regional sources in multiple markets meet the "audience" criteria. Additionally, the guidelines state – "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary" – a criteria which is met by the coverage below in USA Today.
 * http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/news/local/e-pollbooks-to-debut-tuesday-in-clark-champaign/npCqG/
 * http://www.iacreot.com/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageID=3757
 * http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/local-govt-politics/palm-beach-county-elections-office-chases-dow-ipad/ng9BD/
 * http://www.wlwt.com/news/boe-holds-special-meeting-to-iron-out-problems-with-epoll-technology/36364536
 * http://www.wlwt.com/news/responsibleohio-filing-injunction-to-extend-voting-hours-for-hamilton-co/36237914
 * http://wvxu.org/post/e-poll-vendor-takes-responsibility-some-election-night-problems#stream/0
 * http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/2015/11/05/ohio-vote-glitches-get-fixed-2016/75261776/
 * These sources are reliable and independent. The scope of Tenex Software Solutions is national in scale. The product has been noticed by decision-making individuals in large cities who determine how their elections will be calculated. Given that it is an election year, it is more than appropriate that this software, through which thousands of voters will cast their ballot, be noted on Wikipedia. Stevenjohnson14 (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I'm afraid these sources do not meet any of the criteria for a stand-alone article on this company. Your first source literally mentions the name of the company in passing and is about the use of Electronic poll books. The second is a listing at a vendor's exhibition and is not independent of the company. The third doesn't even mention the company. The fourth has two sentences stating that the owner of Tenex answered questions about the glitches at a meeting. The fifth doesn't even mention the company. The sixth is virtually the same as as the fourth, just a different local TV station (and still just a couple of sentences). The seventh and last one (USA Today) doesn't even mention the company. The focus and primary subject of every single one of those articles is the use electronic poll books in local elections in three counties and the glitches that ensued, not all of which were down to Tenex, which becomes immediately apparent if you actually read the articles. Wikipedia is not in the business of consumer advocacy and exposés. And frankly, the sole purpose of this article appears to have been to attack this particular company.
 * You might be able to incorporate some of this material, neutrally worded and not giving undue weight to one particular company into the Electronic pollbook article, e.g. glitches in Chicago using pollbooks from Elections Systems & Software, glitches in yesterday's primary in Duval Country Florida using pollbooks from VR systems , etc. etc. etc. The glitches with Tenex are not remotely unique nor an indication of the company's significance and notability. I also note that you have added yet more of your unbalanced, exaggerated "coverage" of this episode to the article, and have not mentioned anywhere that not all the glitches were down to the software. Why? Voceditenore (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have now corrected some of the unbalanced summary of the coverage and (deliberate?) omissions in your recent additions. I have also formatted the references properly so that the titles are clear as well as the dates, indicating that all of this brouhaha boils down to local stories on one issue, on two local television stations over a 5 day period with the basic material repeated several times. While this article sits on Wikipedia, it is not going to be used as a soapbox lacking both perspective and neutral point of view. Voceditenore (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep I like to quote the opening of wp:corp at AfC, which says: "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." While I agree that the emphasis on the glitch is undue, the company has had an effect on .... etc. LaMona (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * LaMona, do you really interpret a significant effect to be that a programming error by this small company caused a biggish but temporary problem in one US county's local election and a relatively minor one in another? And it's clear from the articles that the programming error was not the only reason for the snafu at the polling stations. The problem is, this article cannot be anything but undue because there is zero independent coverage about the company itself—its history, its other activities, etc.. Even the local news stations didn't try to find out about it. They covered the polling station delay and subsequent local shouting match for five days and then zero. Most of the coverage didn't even state the name of the company. Two simply mentioned it in passing, and two had two sentences about how its head apologized at a local meeting for their part in the delays (essentially duplicate stories). None of the stories were about the company at all. Why? Because the company itself is insignificant. There are dozens of companies that supply these E Poll books, and you can find "news" about election glitches for virtually every one of them. E Poll books cause glitches. Dog bites man. You can equally find local stories about small companies that supplied faulty trash cans to the local authority and got everyone hot and bothered for five days. So what? Voceditenore (talk) 07:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as too soon perhaps, I certainly see the coverage but it's still questionable and my searches found nothing outstandingly better. Notifying for his familiar insight.  SwisterTwister   talk  05:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I humbly request that this page be removed as soon as possible. The contributions and discussion on this page have not provided any informational benefit to the general public. Our software has been used in dozens of elections with no issues or coverage and the article (if I can even call it that) is completely biased and has honed in on one election. - Ravi Kallem, Tenex Software Solutions, Inc. Ravikallem (talk) 01:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, sources such as, , and gives the company coverage and such be enough to pass GNG. I always found WP:TOOSOON not applicable if reliable sources exist.  Valoem   talk   contrib  19:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete this per deleters and transfer material to Electronic_voting as a useful example from local elections. Johnbod (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. both on grounds of notability and NOTNEWS. I would not transfer any of this anywhere. It's too minor: it involves one county in Ohio. As Ohio is a winner-takes-all state, and Kasich won with 229,000 votes ahead of the 2nd place candidate, it has no conceivable political effect. For that matter, I think all or almost all of the instances in Electronic_voting are inappropriate content for an encyclopedia:  it is not anywhere near a complete list, and there is no apparent basis on which the material was chosen (e.g. political impact, major lawsuit, new type of technical problem) One of the instances apparently involves 3 voters!   DGG ( talk ) 21:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * delete got into the news for one thing. WP:NOTNEWS and fails GNG. Jytdog (talk) 06:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * While they may be locally and regionally based, the sources from which this article is based off of are reliable and independent. The notability of Tenex's software lies in the impact of their technology on the democratic process – which is exactly why the articles that focus on the performance of the software are relevant, regardless of direct mentions of Tenex. With that, I believe the paige should remain as a resource for those seeking more information on this technology as it gains greater popularity in traditional voting services.Stevenjohnson14 (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What potentially "impacts the democratic process" (although that is vastly over-stated) is the use of Electronic voting and electronic pollbooks, not the individual companies that supply the devices. The sum total of this company's "impact on the democratic process" was in two counties during local elections which necessitated keeping the polls open for another 90 minutes. What you had consistently omitted from the article but documented in the local coverage were the additional reasons for the glitches which had nothing to do with this company:  breakdown of the WiFi connection, a shortage of provisional ballots, and election staff who ignored (or weren't aware of) the  paper poll books that were in every precinct as a back up. Stevenjohnson14, if this company's impact was so significant, can you explain why half of the articles on the local election in Ohio didn't even mention its name, and why none of them decided it was worth writing an article about the company itself? Voceditenore (talk) 08:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 14:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - the company is an example of an issue. The issue is notable, the company is not. Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:CORPDEPTH.  Onel 5969  TT me 17:14, 2 April 2016 (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.