Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exadel

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Kurykh (talk) 05:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exadel

Exadel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. References are the usual low quality mix of self-published/press releases, and mentions in passing. Company doing business as usual; WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES, WP:CORPSPAM. Also, clear WP:COI>created by the company's employee, as they themselves admitted on article's talk page (no, COI is not a reason for deletion, just another red flag suggesting that nobody outside the company itself thinks it is notable). PS. Ping User:Chrissymad who nominated it for speedy; I skipped prod since the creator posted an argument for keeping it on talk. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, it's borderline. You seem to be correct about the refs -- there is a mix of PR stuff and mere-mention stuff. I'm not seeing any magazine articles about the entity, interviews with the founders, stuff like that. It's highly questionable if the entity meets WP:CORPDEPTH, assuming you exclude self-generated material and press releases. On the other hand... if they have 900 people and operate in several countries (assuming that's true, which I do assume), it's not like they are a local shoe store. They're a significant entity. This is merely a press release, but assuming it is true (which I do assume), they were named to the Software Development Times 100 (albeit in one category, Rich Client). Software Development Times has an article here so I guess it is not just some guy's website. So that's something. But they may be a mere logrolling rag which publishes press releases and gives out awards hoping in return for advertisements from recipients; I don't know. Doesn't look like it.
I tend to be inclusionist for entities like this -- we're not paper, so why not have the material, since somebody's already contributed it? -- so I'm not going to vote them out. Or in, either. I guess it's a question of whether one thinks "900 people and operate in several countries" is the kind of entity we ought to have an article on, or not. Herostratus (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to WP:RS, those are listed as unacceptable references for the purposes of ascertaining notability. I agree they appear to be a big company and one would assume such a company would have been written about in independent third party sources. I've haven't done an extensive search but I only see company-generated PR and announcements or passing mentions (all of which fail WP:RS) so I'm leaning towards Delete. Or to put it another way ... how do we really *know* they have 900 employees and operate in several countries if all the the information we have to go on was produced by the company. It could be all bogus. -- HighKing++ 17:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it's actually simple, the information is all emulative of what their own press releases would say and the sources are then announcements and mentions, both of which are not what substantiates notability here, the history also shows there's been no attempts at confirming any policy-backed improvements. Overall, the article shows clear signs at company involvements. In fact, WP:CORPDEPTH itself states such sources are not independent since all overfocused specifics are naturally going to be by and for the company. We ourselves established policies against such company webhosting because it starts to affect and damage the encyclopedia and what it is, so simply keeping as is for fun, isn't what we considered genuine substance. SwisterTwister talk 04:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, for review. Ok, I agree that some links did not meet Wikipedia policy. I removed them. I am ready to delete all links and facts from the history of the Сompany, which are not suitable for Wikipedia. To make you more well disposed toward the article, I want to discuss some of its links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RichFaces - Wiki page about famous Exadel's product RichFaces. You can read this fact in History chapter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hat - wiki page about Red Hat Company. They wrote about the agreement with Exadel about the distribution of its software. http://www.park.by/it/enterprises/?query=Exadel&staff=&lng=en/ - the link which navigates to the site of High-Tech Park of the Republic of Belarus. You can see that Exadel is its resident. This organization belongs to the state and will not place false information. The Information about Belorussian High-Tech Park is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarus_High_Technologies_Park; https://appery.io/about-us/ - this site provides information about Appery.io mobile application (Exadel's famous product).http://sdtimes.com/forecast-2016-predictions-around-industry/2/ - Fima Katz(CEO of Exadel and Appery) is being interviewed for CDTimes magazine. https://marketplace.eclipse.org/content/exadel-javafx-plug - another famous product(Exadel JavaFX plug-in) of Exadel. I didn't hide that I am an employee of this company. It is written in my profile. If you advise me what to correct in the article I would be very grateful.Natallia Sasava (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Natallia Sasava: Dear Natallia. Thank you for participating in the discussion. First, if the article would end up beind deleted, you can request that it is instead moved to your sandbox for future refininng (WP:USERFY); even if the conclusion is that the company is not notable now, it could become notable later, so your work wouldn't have to be wasted. Second. While I wouldn't rank Belarus government as highly truthful (dictatorships and truth are not best friends) , I agree there is no reason to doubt [1]. But while the company may and likely does deserve a mention of its name at Belarus_High_Technologies_Park, the fact that the website of that location mentions is does not help in estabilishing notability. That website is pretty much a WP:PRIMARY type of a resource; a de facto directory listing, and as such is not a good source. Being listed in a directory is not an achievement that grants notability. This doesn't even mention the company; that an employee is interviewed may relate to the notability of the employee, but not company, since notability is not inherited between entities. Product pages similarly don't confer notability. If there are reviews of the product, etc., it may deserve an article, but doesn't particularly affect the company. Well, if a company has produced a number of notable products, this usually is an indicator it is notable, but we would have to see the list of products, and discuss which one are notable. And frankly, the RichFaces you mentioned has very poor references and as written, should likely be a subject of its own deletion discussion (fails WP:NSOFTWARE, IMHO). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Piotrus for your time and efforts. 1. Just you were sure that Belarusian Hight-Tech park is not so bad organization I provide you link to The Wall Street Journal about it:) - https://www.wsj.com/articles/belarus-is-emerging-as-the-silicon-valley-of-eastern-europe-1481032802. 2. I removed again some of inappropriate links and added one https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/exadel#/entity (not sure that it is matches your requirements) 3. In case if this article is not suitable for Wiki I would be happy to move it to the sandbox. Should I write a separate request for it? 4. I have also 2 interesting links: http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=931555&privcapId=931537 - profile of Exadel's CEO Fima Katz on Bloomberg site & https://clutch.co/profile/exadel - Exadel's profile on clutch. Could you help me whether they are OK with using them in the article? Natallia Sasava (talk) 12:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, you don't have to remove links. Links to conpany website/etc. are not sufficient to provide notability, but they can be used as references for some facts (ex. if only your own website states the number of employees, there is not better source for this key fact, etc.). The Clutch website doesn't seem like a very reliable source. The profile they have reads like PR, and I would be surprised if it weren't written by one of your employees. Such sites, reposting PR/press releases/etc. are not treated as good sources. Similarly, Bloomberg profiles, while more reliable due to its provider reputation, are also usually written either by the subject/company employees, or based on materials sent by them to Bloomberg. Further, as such websites do not make it transparent what are the criteria for inclusion, we have to assume they include anyone who pays them the fee, and as such, inclusion in such directories is not seen as saying much about the company's/person importance. I assume you have read WP:NCORP. An argument for company's notability has to be based on that. Good sources include coverage in reputable media, and winning major (not minor) awards. Since you expressed the wish to have the article moved to your userspace if it is deleted, I assume the closing admin will read it and will do so instead of outright deletion if this is the conclusion of the debate. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, I agree that article needs to be moved to sandbox for further improvements in case it is not suitable for wiki now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natallia Sasava (talk • contribs) 11:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see no prospect that further work on it will show notability , and I therefore suggest plain deletion, without moving to user space, where it will remain forever. DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • We've added a few new links that may increase notability and improve credibility - link to eclipse community, to oracle (these references are very competent in IT-world), please take a look. And anyway we need some time to find evidences and improve article so if notability is still under question please would you be so kind to move our article to sandbox to continue work on it. Thank you Natallia Sasava (talk) 14:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Exadel&oldid=1143885666"