Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morfik
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 Keep. The sources added late in the discussion appear to address the notability concerns. Shimeru 00:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been deleted several times as both a non-notable company and as advertisement. I don't know what those versions looked like, but it seems borderline to me, so I'm taking it here. At the very least, it's lacking third party sources. Leebo T/C 01:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted and protected from creation. reason above means that atempts to create will cause it to be recreated from time to time. protect from creation. George Leung 02:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per George Leung.--Paloma Walker 03:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and protect Fails WP:CORP. --Infrangible 10:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom --Mattinbgn/ talk 11:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Author To be clear, it was deleted twice (in January). I was having difficulty working on the page, as a Wikipedia novice. I also didn't understand what was going on - I thought I just didn't save the changes, so I just recreated it. It took a while to figure out that it was being deleted. Once I understood what was going on I worked on it in my user space, with initial suggestions from KillerChihuahua and Steel359.
- I am not affiliated with Morfik in any way, and I am not gaining any benefit from working on this article. However, I believe the company is certainly notable, as they appear to have made significant strides in the realm of building Ajax applications, and as a result I feel that inclusion would be warranted.
- Patent pending on compilation of high-level languages into Javascript/Ajax
- Discussed extensively by Ajax magazine, including a couple of articles this week, also in Ajaxian, Redmonk, ZDNet, and Readwriteweb
- Original appearance at Web 2.0 conference made the front page on Slashdot in 2005, among others
- Other development tools are listed on Wikipedia, including some that are clearly ads, such as TIBCO, Adobe Flex, and ASP.Net Ajax, two of which aren't even officially out yet.
- If you have suggestions or ideas on what I should do to make the article better, or alleviate the concerns, then please let me know so I can fix it. Thanks. MikeyTheK 13:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Notability for companies is defined by Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Many companies have achievements that they can list (well, hopefully, or they're probably not a very good company), but not all of them are notable. Please read the guidelines and determine if Morfik can meet them. They are typically fulfilled by adding references to the article. The article has no references. Lastly, an article can read like an advertisement even if the company is not paying you. It's a matter of reader interpretation, not personal corporate affiliation. Leebo T/C 13:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Leebo, thanks for the reply. I'll work on incorporating more of the external sources that discuss Morfik over the next couple of days. However, the "advertisement" seems a bit odd of a reason for terminating an article. The pages on TIBCO, Flex, and ASP.Net Ajax don't seem to cite any sources, and they read pretty clearly like ads to me. Maybe it's just me. I'm trying to make the Morfik article objective and neutral. MikeyTheK 14:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Regarding the other pages - they may be eligible for deletion too. I have not yet looked at them. But try not to base the standards of this article on existing articles of the same type. It may be counterintuitive, but we can only address each article individually, in the way it relates to policy. Leebo T/C 15:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Thanks for the explanation, Leebo. Please give me a few days to improve the article, and thanks for the input. MikeyTheK 12:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, that will be at the discretion of the administrator who closes the discussion, but you've been cooperative and understanding, so maybe some extra time could be provided. I can't guarantee anything though. Leebo T/C 14:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm relisting this AfD to allow time for improvements. – Steel 14:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete but don't protect. Company doesn't seem notable enough at the moment but may well soon if their product(s) take off. --J2thawiki 17:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep possibly the lawsuit is enough for notability, and if anything can be found in the computer publications, then it would seem to be notable already. DGG 00:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there is a lawsuit - just an "implied threat" of one. --J2thawiki 14:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply from author Hi, guys. AFAIK there is no lawsuit. There is the patent issue that has raised its ugly head again, and the "implied threats" of defending IP rights (again, I don't work for Morfik in any way, shape or form, so I don't know this for sure). I was going to add the patent stuff today, though, since I'm out of time, and haven't had three seconds to rub together on the article until today, though. MikeyTheK 23:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The discussion was relisted, so you have another day or so. Leebo T/C 23:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Thanks, Leebo. I'm trying to get this right, but I'm also new to writing articles for Wikipedia, so I still have no idea what I'm doing. MikeyTheK 01:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Update Guys. I think I've done as much as I can think of doing. There are numerous cites, and lots of external links. If there's something else I need to do, please let me know.
- Keep: It has sufficient sources that assert notability. --Kevinkor2 20:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, note that some of the 22 references are blog entries, forum discussions, and press releases. The actual number of articles seems to be far fewer than 22, but it's hard to tell exactly. I'm not saying that the articles that are included don't assert notability, but it's dilluted a bit with sources that don't pass Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Leebo T/C 20:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response (Anon, and newbie), note that 11 of the 22 references have now been converted to standard external hyperlinks. The remaining are reliable reference sources.
- 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.