Talk:37signals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 April 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

The link to Writeboard ends up in a redirect to this page. If this needs a page (and therefore link) of its own then that should be created and the redirect removed. Otherwise, the link should be removed. Kickstart70 23:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

One issue that came up during the AfD linked above was the people who don't like 37signals and/or their approach. There's certainly room for that to be brought into the article and it would balance out the "press release" sound it now has (after adding things to justify the company's notability). --Dhartung | Talk 05:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• no real controvery here outside the fact that you keep inserting marketing language that should not be present in the article. fine if you a fan, but this is not the place for you to promote them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.72.31.25 (talk • contribs).

The question raised in the AfD was one of notability. Pointing out that they have been successful is not "marketing language", it's asserting notability. (I'm open to other suggestions on how to do so with NPOV.) That said, the article having survived deletion, I don't feel the need to get every last detail of their success in there (I thought it was sufficient before the AfD, but apparently others did not). In the future, it would be helpful and appreciated if you would assume good faith rather than suggesting that someone who disagrees with you about wording is a "fan" or "promoter".

For example, it seems notable to me that they sold 5000+ books with no promotion other than their blog, or that they regularly sell out their seminars. Sometimes the success is part of the story. --Dhartung | Talk 21:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Given that User:66.72.31.25 appears to be the only objector, and has not responded here after one week, I am restoring the removed material, which are sourced statements about the company which conform to WP:CITE. Given that they come from sources outside Wikipedia and not the opinion of an editor, there should be no reason not to include them. --Dhartung | Talk 07:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• sorry, but marketing language will not be tolerated. the previous version has been restored. for the record, i did not call you fan, but simply said it's fine if you are one. from your contributions, i do not believe you to be an objective contributor to this article and i will monitor your edits. do not insert inappropriate marketing language. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.108.208.226 (talk • contribs).

This really isn't personal, and here, again, you are labeling my contributions, without assuming good faith. I have not labeled your reverts or your comments here; why do you feel the need to do so? Given that you have ordered me not to "insert inappropriate marketing language", I ask why cited facts should not be included in the article (specifically, book sales, opinions of the company in Salon.com and InformationWeek, the name of their corporate philosophy, and exchanges with other tech CEOs about that philosophy). These facts gauge the importance, notability, and influence of the company. I am open to other wording, but you have not suggested any. I believe that revert wars are harmful to Wikipedia so I will not revert you at this time, but allow you an opportunity to suggest other ways to incorporate information which comes from outside sources per verifiability policy. --Dhartung | Talk 22:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• there is nothing wrong with facts, but you are cherry picking them and creating nothing more than a fluff piece. one need only review your previous contributions to see you are editing the article in such a way that it makes it read more like a promotional piece -- and i am not the only one to notice. you were told this before by other users within the deletion process discussion forum. one poster commented that "the article reads like a company press release or the back of a book cover" which is not appropriate. 66.73.162.105 14:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You know, this little article doesn't deserve this drama, so spare me. I have to assume you're taking such a heavy-handed (and un-Wikipedian) approach because at heart you, too, want the article better. I would like to continue to add things, but I really don't relish writing and getting blanked again. Let's cooperate instead; you tell me what you think is appropriate, beforehand. Here are some of the areas that were in my mind: a separate section on the SvN blog; individual sections on the applications; the APIs and third-party add-ons such as the browser for Campfire; a discussion of the Google Web Accelerator tiff. If criticism is what you want, there were kerfuffles over turning off comments at SvN (because of too many flames, basically), the GWA business (an esoteric web programming standards issue), and the underwhelming response to Writeboard, which arrived at the same time as competitor Writely. If there's anything else about the company you think should be there, but don't feel competent to write yourself, bring it up here and I'll take a crack. --Dhartung | Talk 08:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name?

Where's the name come from? --Mike Schiraldi 04:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

From the article: "The company is named for the 37 radiotelescope signals identified by astronomer Paul Horowitz as potential messages from extraterrestrial intelligence." --Dhartung | Talk 05:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)