Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Athoc

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. postdlf (talk) 03:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Athoc

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this article does not appear to meet WP:COMPANY or the general notability guideline. The only non-press release source in the references now is a 2-paragraph mention from bizjournals.com, hardly enough to meet the requirement of multiple independent sources. I was unable to find any more suitable sources. VQuakr (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article creator has requested this article's deletion here. The page does not appear to be a valid G7 since it has multiple contributors. VQuakr (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Looking through the history, I don't see where many of the other editors added substance to the page; the text is almost all one author's, the remaining edits were all formatting or adding tags and templates. I'd suggest it is a valid G7. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposed to a G7 if everyone else agrees that it applies. VQuakr (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to not allow it. I think it's important that ~~VQuakr~~ Andrew Young US (correction--wrong user, sorry) and AdHoc in general start to try to understand that they cannot control this page in any way. Since VQuakr indicates an intention to likely make a new article in the future, it's good for them to see right now that the decision to keep or delete the page, and what information to include on it, is not based on the company's desires, but based upon Wikipedia policies. However, some might argue that this is being unnecessarily bureaucratic, which of course Wikipedia is not. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Delete. Another tech business, a a provider of network-centric mass notification and emergency communication systems. Referenced to press releases and PR sites. No showing that this business has had significant effects on technology, history, or culture of the kind that make for long term historical notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The intention of having the page in place was to provide those seeking to understand the emergency notification industry with a snapshot of one entity that has helped to inspire, if not wholly introduce concepts that have spawned new forms of innovation and advancement for the technology in question. Not to sound condescending, but the discussion above is starting to sound like a schoolhouse debate on the punishment of an unruly or incorrigible student. I assure you gentlemen, that is not required here. The issue here is not one of whether Wikipedia was being leveraged for purposes other than creating a credible source of knowledge...but rather, it is one of inexperience with creating the most effective article possible. I concede this - hat in hand. However at this point, my concern is that no matter what edits or sources are cited in support of the article, its fate is a foregone conclusion regardless of this discussion. If I am assured that these edits will be reviewed in an unbiased and fully objective fashion, I will spend the time revising and validating the merit of this article. I believe that this company, having been around since 1999 and risen to become the de-facto solutions provider to millions of military personnel, college students and emergency managers worldwide -- is notable. Their solutions have evolved in parallel with the technology (3G, 4G, GSM, CDMA, etc) and infrastructure that enables them. Hundreds of other providers have appeared since 9/11, Virginia Tech and countless other tragedies. This company is one of the very few that was in existence before these unfortunate events, and has demonstrated a consistent commitment to new thoughts, ideas and solutions that are beneficial to all. These systems save lives. If they fail, they do not. It is that important. While there are some notable instances of failure relating to these types systems when used in live situations, none of these are attributable to this company. Given the aforementioned length of their existence, the rigid environments and stringent requirements within which their systems are deployed (primarily military) and documented chronology of innovation -- I strongly contend that this article is valuable. It is my own shortcoming not to have articulated this or created this article correctly with respect to Wikipedia guidelines. Those seeking knowledge and insight into this industry should not suffer as a result. Andrew Young US (talk) 12:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We should indeed have information about the emergency notification industry; but the starting place for such an article would be an article about emergency notification or emergency notification service. To single out one firm to provide a "snapshot" of the industry is putting the cart before the horse. We'd frankly be glad to have someone in the firm write us a concrete description of the methods and tools used by such firms. But until such time as Athoc itself is recognized by others as having invented or launched a product or service that has some kind of significance in the development of the field, it probably is not a promising subject for a standalone article. Rating services and trade awards in themselves don't tell us much, either. They really don't tell us what was achieved or why.

(Puts on a schoolmaster's mortarboard) I'd also recommend that you have a look at our basic neutrality policy, and look at the manual of style on words to watch and the plain English essay, which contains specific tips on writing on business subjects. Even here, you're calling the products solutions and the businesses solution providers. You're using leverage as a verb. Please don't take this personally, but that kind of writing breaks our neutrality policy and is not appropriate in main-space article texts. It requires heavy editing, or if it's too vague to be informative, it's just going to get removed. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thanks for the feedback, and it is all taken with a sense of objectivity. That said, I would argue that this article on a "specific provider" is not "putting the cart before the horse" as you say. Have you actually sat and read this article? Please see both the "See also" and "Supporting Technology" sections. Upon completion, I think you will see that your comments create an oxymoron -- kind of like "freezer-burn". You are calling this a "stand-alone" article while the article itself is written to reference related aspects of the industry as well as the supporting infrastructure.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to provide the links and insight. Andrew Young US (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sorry, just noticed I never actually put a !vote here. This is a company that looks like it's really right on the border--if they have the contracts that their press releases and website claims, they seem to have a significant impact on the field, but the problem is that we need reliable sources to keep the article. It may well be that in 6 months or a year this company will rise to the notability needed for an article. I would be happy to help them work on the article in Andrew Young US's userspace, if xe finds more sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thank you for your offer Qwyrxian, and I will be happy to accept your assistance if indeed the article is deleted. In the interim, I have applied a significant overhaul to said article, and have added some additional references. Over the course of the next day, I plan to increase these references in a clear and coherent sequence. I am hopeful that deletion will not occur prior to that time. If so, then the userspace option will become the focus. Andrew Young US (talk) 04:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I did not specifically reference advertising in my deletion nomination, because my main concern was the company's notability. However, I think it is noteworthy that the tone of this article has actually become more spammy since this deletion discussion began. It is always difficult to write neutrally about topics with which we are personally involved, and I am increasingly concerned that the creator of this particular article may simply be too close to the subject to effectively write about it. VQuakr (talk) 04:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Yaksar (let's chat) 04:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a a valid G7. Onthegogo (talk) 05:19, 24 March 2011 (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.