Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triple Point Technology


 * 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, default to keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Triple Point Technology

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Does not seem to pass Notability (organizations and companies) Avi (talk) 01:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- ukexpat (talk) 01:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, A maker of non-consumer software that fits the profile of a typical spammer: dealing in multi-market commodity and enterprise risk management. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. I found something interesting here and here, as well as an award here.  Their software is used by a lot of companies out there even if non-consumer, but the article is dreadfully pov.  ZabMilenko 14:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. What we learn from those sources is mostly that they are litigious.  One is a magazine story that uses an account of litigation involving this business, which it lost, apparently because it could not deliver promised software, as a background for general musings about the high cost of litigation.  The second is from a law book supplement about (the same? another?) lawsuit which resulted in a reported decision - it's about the point of law decided in the case, not really about this business.  The third is a listing for a very minor trade award, awarded by another business software provider: neither reliable, nor strong evidence of notability. I'm tempted to rewrite the article from the viewpoint of the magazine article; that at least is primarily about this business, even if they're used mostly as the Bad Example of a cautionary tale.  But if all that can be said about this business from reliable, independent sources is that they make more promises than they can deliver on, and then start lawsuits against their clients, I'm not sure that meets business notability either. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep (change from keep). Your points bring up even more concerns about WP:COI (which this article already has a bit too much of going on).  Rewriting from the viewpoint of the magazine would undoubtedly draw criticism as a potential attack page and there doesn't seem to be enough "good" and/or notable content out there to balance.  There is little holding me on the keep side of the fence besides the remaining chance of potential notability and a not-to-be-used WP:EFFORT argument. ZabMilenko 07:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * NOTE: In case it is overlooked, a contributor to the article has made a comment here: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Triple Point Technology. ZabMilenko 04:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, I cannot see the article being regarded as independent or notable. I do respect the efforts of the first editor to improve the article, but an editor should not focus on just one article.  Nelson50 T   09:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. These sources establish notability:    . The current state of the article is not very good, and could use some cutting down. That does not mean it should be filled by mostly negative things though. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * QUESTION: Why are the sources that are currently listed on the article not counted toward notability?Jen Svensson (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC) JenSvensson
 * Most of them are from the company's own website. The BusinessWeek reference does help establosh notability I think. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 12:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TNT. There could be a good article about this, but what we have fails quite badly. Stifle (talk) 08:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * 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.