Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xurmo Technologies


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Xurmo Technologies

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Seems to fail WP:NCORP. I would not usually nominate so soon after the article being moved into main space, however, I believe that the article has no hope of being notable in the short term. Author has been warned that the article does not meet the notability guidelines, and that reliable sources are needed by several people at User talk:Sandeep999, a good analysis of the citations provided can also be found there. My research via google has produced nothing reliable. Quasi human  &#124;  Talk  14:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Sandeep has elected to blank most of his user page. Information referred to in the nomination is available in the history - User talk:Sandeep999#Gaming the system. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Please read the vengeful tone with which that section has been written even after the issue was settled with the Lifebaka's moderation by Tabish. It is to be read also in the context of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers guidelines which Tabish seems to have no regard for. My first article which was removed of any promotional content after it was nominated for speedy deletion was deleted even thought it had been sanitized carefully to not qualify for speedy deletion. I am not sure if the idea is to ensure that an army gets ready to "bite the newcomer". — Sandeep999 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment. Lovers of drama will find the AN/I referred to in my post on Sandeep's page here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. A good deal of time has been spent seeking to inform and alert the author, on his talk page, to the issues associated with the article whilst it was under development in user space; all apparently to no avail. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and discussion on creator's userspace. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lack of reliable sources to demonstrate notability. - MrOllie (talk) 14:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please do not delete: After the first speedy deletion, I have worked carefully with Wiki Administrator Lifebaka on User talk:Lifebaka to make the article as neutral as possible. As in life and a good portion of articles in wiki, life is not perfect, especially in the beginning. Over time, it starts getting better. That is the spirit of evolution. It is something administrator: Lifebaka appeared to understand as well, which is why he helped re-write the article and change the context too to make it more credible. I would request the committee to give the article a minimum time of one month, within which I assure that the utmost effort shall be made to achieve notability. If we decided to kill all articles which were not perfect, wiki would be a lot poorer today. Please give the time required for the article to try to meet the norms Sandeep999 (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Lifebaka has kindly commented below. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: the speedy deletion referred to was for "A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject"`". See also speedy deletion of TURF Insight for "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tagishsimon#Ears_burning.3F, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pigsonthewing#Thanks and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tagishsimon#York_meetup to further my ganging up and biting the newbie concerns. Both links show that Tagish, Andy and Tom Morris are editors who know each other well and have ganged up together for a common objective of teaching a newbie a lesson. Am I to still assume good faith? Sandeep999 (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Meanwhile, please explain how my comment on Tagishsimon's talk page breaches any Wikipedia policy, or is in any way evidence of malpractice? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Who's Tom Morris, and how does he fit into the scheme of things? I've known Andy on Wikipedia for years; he's ace. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. You're not so bad yourself. ;-) Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Tom's only involvement in this case, seems to be the three "This debate has been included in" listings. Clearly, Jimbo should bar him. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't spot the name. Sandeep, when articles are listed for deletion, they get included in topic specific lists which are then, as far as I know, displayed on various wikiprojects with a view of bringing them to the attention of people who may be more knowledgeable or interested in the subject matter than the average user. It's part of an effort to ensure as wide an interest in deletion discussions as possible. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment (ec) I should note that this is a discussion about the notability of the article in question not the motivations of various editors, there are other places for that. I must admit that I'm a little curious as to how I fit into this evil cabal. Quasi  human  &#124;  Talk  17:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * COMMENT: Perhaps it's time to go back to AN/I as this seems nothing more than the original article that was G11'd, which was already discussed at AN/I. Additionally, he has, in a recent image upload and in other comments regarding this, indicated a COI with this topic. R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 18:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's much doubt about the COI. This article differs from the deleted version in that it is about the alleged parent company rather than the alleged subsidiary/product, TURF Insight; and it has five more citations seeking to meet the notability problem. Although Sandeep is a little pissed off right now, and wandering around wikipedia alleging a conspiracy exists, I think the sensible admin response would be that we deal with the article on its merits, or lack thereof, here. Besides, another speedy deletion will merely fan the conspiracy flames. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, I don't think that it is a clear G11 candidate. But the personal attacks may need to be dealt with. Quasi  human  &#124;  Talk  18:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah... single purpose account, who thinks notability is implied because competitor products have articles, who is canvassing, making baseless accusations (as noted above and elsewhere), has "rewritten" the article to still focus on their product they wish to "advertise", and while though working with an admin to make it inclusion worthy (and didn't even wait for a response), has moved it into article space before dealing with all of the notability issues or the fact it still reads like a promotion for TURF (vast majority of it are the same advertising claims prefaced with "claims to" sourced to the primary)... got it. In that case, since there seems to be little interest on addressing the details... R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 19:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete based on above. R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 19:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * After a review of the sources provided in the article, and a few Google searches (for "xurmo technologies") in which I found nothing but a single patent, I'm not inclined to believe the Xurmo is notable according to our guidelines. I said as much on my talk page.  lifebaka++ 21:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Lifebaka, I agree on the notability. But sometimes we also have to look not only at the letter of the law but also the "spirit of the law". As I said before, As in life and a good portion of articles in wiki, life is not perfect, especially in the beginning. Over time, it starts getting better. That is the spirit of evolution. If we decided to kill all articles which were not perfect, wiki would be a lot poorer today. Please give the time required for the article to try to meet the norms. Is a month too much to ask?

On the advt: If you deem the article as advertisement from the two or three sentences that comprise the product description, is it not true of any product description that exists on wiki. Products promise and exist to do "stuff". That would not be advertisement. The best you can do is to say that the product "claims so" and keep a fair distance from the claim. Would you not agree Sandeep999 (talk) 06:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sandeep, we have a guideline for AfD that articles should not be deleted if they can be fixed by editing, so perfection is irrelevant here. The problem is that the topic has not been covered enough in third-party reliable sources, that is something that neither you nor I can fix. Quasi  human  &#124;  Talk  10:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Quasi, I agree. You are right as per the letter of the law. I have already said so. Any topic shall accumulate more sources of info as they go along with new sources starting to cover them. I am only asking for it to be retained for a month. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandeep999 (talk • contribs) 11:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I will leave it to the closing admin to decide on this, however, I should note that we do not normally keep articles which are in anticipation of the topic becoming notable. I wouldn't object if the article is recreated in a month with high quality, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Quasi  human  &#124;  Talk  12:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless you have a good reason to believe that the availability of sources will change some time in the next month (perhaps a paper about to be published or some such), then yes, it is too much to ask. Because the likelihood of new sources appearing, barring a few special circumstances, is slim to none.  lifebaka++ 13:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Thinly disguised spam for a non-notable company. A Google News search yields exactly one press release. MER-C 12:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: as some may consider it relevant to this matter (since it's relevant to this matter), I've addressed some of this in response to a talk page conversation initiated by Sandeep999 on my talk page. You may find it relevant, irrelevant, wish to comment or simply don't care; but I felt it correct to indicate an external discussion was taking place so each of you could decide that on your own. Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 18:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt:
 * The current text qualifies for speedy deletion as unambiguous advertising: an enterprise software company....
 * Buzzword bingo: ...develops a variety of enterprise search, knowledge management, insight generation and predictive analytics applications using semantic technology, artificial intelligence, data-intensive computing, natural language processing, information retrieval, Language modelling, Domain Specific Language based modelling and machine learning technologies under the brand TURF Insight.
 * Floridly non-neutral: ....claims to provide Extremely Personalized Knowledge Discovery for employees in knowledge-led companies through its patent pending technology.
 * Only claim to notability made in the article is that they didn't win a minor trade award: Xurmo Technologies showcased TURF Insight for the Qualcomm QPrize business plan competition organized by Qualcomm Ventures. Xurmo Technologies was one of the eight ventures that was shortlisted for the final round, from the over 70 business plans that made to the competition.


 * Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The awards section in particular is an almost painful attempt to contrive notability where it doesn't exist -- it that's the most that can be said, non-notable. And I can conceive of no good reason to wait a month when there's no evidence any improvement in sourcing is likely.   DGG ( talk ) 23:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - I didn't find any notable sources on Google, Google News (Archive as well) and Yahoo searches aside from this small mention here. SwisterTwister   talk  02:54, 28 August 2011 (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.