Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VersionOne, 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   delete. j⚛e deckertalk 14:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

VersionOne, Inc.

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:notability and WP:NOT Malke 2010 (talk) 20:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Does not meet notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete I was unable to find significant coverage of this company in reliable, independent sources. The current sources either lack independence or are passing mentions.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  03:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per the above, who have said it as well as I can. It's just not notable. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 19:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Question, should JIRA, Rally Software, and Microsoft's Team Foundation Server also be deleted? Thanks, January2009 (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In order of asking: no, possibly, are you kidding? If your argument is that other stuff exists, don't bother. If you seriously want to nominate them go ahead and see where that concludes, but be aware of WP:BEFORE. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment: exactly! This is the same argument January 2009 is using over on the AfD for Novavax, Inc. Malke 2010 (talk) 02:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Walter! I use those three pages as test cases. Rally is a smaller company, and its product widely less used, JIRA is medium, Microsoft is, well huge. Im trying to understand VersionOne in context of these degrees. I would match VersionOne with JIRA, as far as implementation/use. However, its merits as a notable wiki page is determined primarily by references in news/literature. Is a determination influenced by page views? Looks like Rally, is looked at at a nice regular M-F cycle, by ~125 people each day. What about instances of citation by other Wiki articles? VersionOne is mentioned in a few other wiki pages.              Its less likely to find content on these highly used, but smaller, applications- Lockeheed Martin doesnt publish its development processes, for example. However, does creating the wiki page add value, beyond the vendor page? Its hard to say.  January2009 (talk) 22:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. The size of the company is immaterial. What matters is if the product or company is notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Why should any Wikipedia editor care whether or not a page "adds value" to the company that is the subject of the article, ? Our task here is to create and improve neutral encyclopedia articles about notable topics, not to advance any company's interests. There are countless things rightly mentioned on Wikipedia which are not notable enough for their own articles. We have 4.5 million articles, many of which don't meet our standards. Feel free to nominate any of them for deletion, or to improve them. But we don't care too much about page views. A well-written article about a notable though obscure topic is just as welcome as our articles about Vladimir Putin or Barack Obama.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  01:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Cullen328. As I meant it, the wiki page should add value to the wiki reader. There are a lot of people out in the business world trying to put answers to problems! They need info. Working for a Fortune 500 company myself, I often use wikipedia as supplement to other online resources to get information about obscure chemicals, IT applications, technologies. They are very notable to me! This conversation is useful. I wonder if there is another wiki project where this kind of need can be met.  January2009 (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You are confusing the concept of "notable" in Wikipedia terms with what you see as "useful", . A street map of the subdivision where I live is useful to me, as is a list of my friends' e-mail addresses and birthdays. If I was considering investing in an obscure start-up, then every scrap of information about that venture would be useful to me as I did my due diligence. But none of that is appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. We include only articles about topics which meet our notability guidelines. No exceptions allowed.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  02:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I hate to nitpick, because I agree with the substance of what Cullen is saying here, but "No exceptions allowed" isn't exactly true; not only is WP:N a guideline (rather than a policy), there are cases on Wikipedia where it is appropriate to ignore all rules. But this is a case neither for an exception to the guideline nor to ignore all rules. It's just a non-notable subject. Sure they have a couple patents and some press releases out there, either of which may eventually net some coverage, but what's out there now is just not enough. Compared to the subject of the Novavax, Inc. article you created January2009 (I note that I have !voted keep in that article's AfD), this is a much different situation. While there are a number of mentions on LexisNexis, those are by and large press releases; the few independent sources that even mention VersionOne only do so in passing or are otherwise unreliable. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 09:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Mendaliv, not a nitpick at all. Your position is well reasoned and kindly stated and I very much I appreciate. I find I agree, this company does not meet notability. Thank you for your time looking at both articles. January2009 (talk) 02:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , you are correct and I overstated my case a bit. Please allow me to restate my final point as follows: "Exceptions to our notability guidelines are quite rare, and this isn't such a case." Thank you.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  03:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2014 (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.