Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dimensional Insight

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. Proto::type 11:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dimensional Insight

Dimensional_Insight (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable company - blatant spam--Edchilvers 21:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - I find it truly interesting that Edchilvers (who can't even spell the word "blatant" correctly, by the way) arrogates the right to decide which companies are notable and which are not. Why does he not then request the deletion of articles about similar companies in the same line of business, such as Applix, Business Objects, Cognos, Hyperion Solutions, MicroStrategy, QlikTech, etc.? Edchilvers must provide some pretty good reasons why these other companies are notable, while a very similar company such as Dimensional Insight is not. Failing that, and unless he is asking to delete all Business intelligence vendors, I must conclude Edchilvers is biased. Pasquale 23:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • If there was more information as to why it is a notable company then I would happily change my mind.--Edchilvers 07:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, firstly, you must define "notable company"; secondly, you must explain why and how you have become the single judge of this matter on the Wikipedia, when you don't seem to know much at all about Business intelligence vendors; thirdy, you must explain why you have attacked this company specifically — indeed, to the point of describing information about it as "spam", clearly without any knowledge of fact — but not other companies, such as the ones I have listed above, which operate in the same line of business and produce similar products. As you have not requested the deletion of those other comparable companies, I must conclude that (1) either you have an axe to grind, or (2) if this is simply an unmotivated, random attack, then you are in fact the "spammer" here! Pasquale 15:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Why is it notable? Who are its customers-are they notable? Who are its directors-are they notable? How does it compare with others in the field of Business Intelligence? I concede that I was a little hasty in labelling the article as 'spam' and I would like to retract that part of my statement. I am still not convinced that it meets the Wikipedia criteria for notability though--Edchilvers 18:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "If article X then article Y." is a fallacious argument, for obvious reasons. This discussion is about this article. To make an argument for keeping the article, you must cite sources to demonstrate that the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied. Please cite sources. Uncle G 19:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Pasquale, assume good faith on the part of Edchilvers. Company is NN. Scienter 18:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I couldn't disagree more. I happen to know this company well and use its products daily. When I created this article, I specifically patterned it on articles about a number of similar companies, which produce and market similar products (e.g.: Applix, Business Objects, Cognos, Hyperion Solutions, MicroStrategy, QlikTech, etc.). Uncle G says: "'If article X then article Y.' is a fallacious argument, for obvious reasons." I beg your pardon: What obvious reasons? Quite the contrary, in fact. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I think, is the rule of thumb. The article includes a link to the company's web site (http://www.dimins.com) that provides all the information you need (same as for those other companies). Again, no one can tell me what the "notability" criteria are. If there are indeed such criteria, then they should be enforced for all businesses, not just this one.
    • Rubbish. You've already been told three times what the criteria are, both in this discussion and in notices in the article itself, all of which have linked directly to the criteria to apply and how to demonstrate that they are satisfied. You'll not make a case by arguing as you are continuing to do. Your only way to make a case is to do what I said to do above. So stop making erroneous arguments about some supposed arbitrariness or unfairness of the long-standing criteria that we apply to all companies, and start citing those sources. Uncle G 14:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • (1) Edchilvers seems to be asking for a list of customers and a list of directors. That is what the company's web site is for. If you need more information, you can call the company directly and ask for informational materials, but I don't see how that belongs to the Wikipedia article.
  • (2) Uncle G asks for sources. Again, from what I can see, the company's web site is usually the only source provided in articles about other companies. What other sources do you need? Customer testimonials? They are on the company's web site.
  • (3) Scienter, apparently without any direct knowledge, asserts the company is "NN" and invites me to assume good faith on the part of Edchilvers, when in fact I happen to know quite a bit about Business intelligence software, while, with all due respect, Edchilvers doesn't seem to. I say to Scienter: Please assume my good faith!
  • I am sorry, but this all seems quite preposterous to me. I have been a Wikipedia editor for two and a half years, I have made several thousand contributions, started numerous articles, and have never come across this kind of biased, targeted scrutiny. I strongly urge Edchilvers to withdraw his unmotivated AfD nomination and I strongly urge Uncle G to remove his arbitrary notability warning. Pasquale 20:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not arbitrary. They are the criteria that apply to all company articles. Uncle G 14:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    • The companies Pasquale refer to all carry at least one claim of notability. Applix were one of the pioneers of integrated Speadsheet/Word Processing/Graphics office automation suites running on Unix workstations, MicroStrategy created a dot.com which was among the first services to broadcast custom alerts (such as stock price alerts) to wireless devices, and so forth. The article on DI, by contrast, lists no such pioneering developments and is therefore non-notable in it current form--Edchilvers 21:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: (To echo Edchilvers and expand a bit: Business Objects (company) has about 20 times the number of customers of DI and is publicly traded; Cognos has 3,500 employees and 23,000 customers (versus 1500 for DI); Hyperion Solutions and MicroStrategy are publicly traded (NASDAQ), and QlikTech has 3 times the number of customers. That leaves Applix, which sold office productivity software starting in the 1980s to a wide market, and so has a rich history (one admittedly not well documented in its article, which really should be stubbed). In short, not very good examples, and even if they were, WP:INN would still be citable. John Broughton | Talk 21:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks for all the clarifications, but I am still trying to understand what the "notability" threshold is here. John Broughton points out, quite correctly, that Hyperion Solutions and MicroStrategy are publicly traded, while QlikTech, like Dimensional Insight, is not. However, says John Broughton, QlikTech has 3 times the number of customers as Dimensional Insight. Ha-ha! Now I am finally beginning to understand. We are down to the number of customers. In other words, Dimensional Insight will be notable when it has 3 times the number of customers. Is that what you are telling me, John Broughton? I am sorry, but this all sounds like ad-hoc argumentation, i.e. the criteria keep changing as it seems convenient from moment to moment. Pasquale 21:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
        • No, we are not down to number of customers. You've been pointed to the actual criteria to satisfy three times, now. Uncle G 14:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Article is in no way spam. The company website can serve as a source. It passes WP:CORP since a simple google search revealed numerous third-party articles on the company, and/or products.CraigMonroe 21:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please cite three. Uncle G 13:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I would but other posters already have. CraigMonroe 17:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn private company. Company's own site does not count as a "source". Also the attacks on Edchilvers and hostility do not help. meshach 06:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Switch to Keep per sopurces being added. meshach 04:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Neutral An article about a company, where the article contains only information from the company's website, is simply a (pale) reflection of that website. Such a wikipedia article adds absolutely no value, and deleting such an article discourages this practice. Wikipedia is not intended to be a mirror of the Web. If DI becomes much-discussed in the news, or otherwise achieves some objective degree of notability, then an expanded version of the article can be recreated. John Broughton | Talk 16:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The threshold for notability per WP:CORP is rather low, in my opinion, but the sources that have been added to the article do appear to qualify the company per that policy. So I'm changing my vote to neutral; if I agreed more with the policy, I'd vote "Keep". John Broughton | Talk 01:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Neutral I'm struggling to find anything to support notability under WP:Corp, but I'm not seeing it. I tried a quick google, but don't see anything that would do the trick. If someone can point to citations that show that this corporation does meet the criteria, please do - otherwise it should be deleted. --TheOtherBob 23:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that Truthbringer's citations (see below) quite get it to a keep - but they might. After reviewing them, I'm entirely on the fence - and so am changing my comment to a neutral one. --TheOtherBob 00:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - A Google search brings up at least a handful of notable links (business partner of IBM, Vietnam News piece). It may read like spam now, but it's not beyond repair. Still notable. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 03:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - What Pasquale does not note here is that he is an employee of Dimensional Insight, posting this article under direction from the VP of Marketing. This is not a reason, in itself, for deletion. --Dyfrgi 06:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • What is the basis for saying he's an employee? I looked at his user page, user talk page, and edit summaries to postings about this company, and couldn't find anything that said that. He says, above, I happen to know this company well and use its products daily, which I took to mean that he was a customer, but if he in fact is an employee then WP:COI applies. So, to repeat so that the question doesn't get lost: what is the basis for your statement? John Broughton | Talk 16:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I heard this from a friend who was telling me about an employee of Dimensional Insight who had recently posted an article about the company and was defending it against deletion - without mentioning that he's an employee. My friend doesn't actually work there, but he knows someone who does. So, technically my statement is hearsay, but I have no reason to disbelieve it. Really, the article now looks just as good as those of other similar companies, but I thought that Pasquale's association with the company should be known. Dyfrgi 05:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I found references and added them to the article, and I feel the references adequately demonstrate notability. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Outside sources provide WP:V and WP:NOTE. --Oakshade 00:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Having used Dimensional Insight's products, I can say that they compare favorably with those of most competitors. Considering the major mergers in the BI industry in recent years, Dimensional Insight is indeed notable for remaining privately held and maintaining positive growth each year. This baseless attack on an informative and non-offensive entry should be ignored. MahmoudAmadinejad 03:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC) — MahmoudAmadinejad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • (I moved the foregoing down to the bottom of the page.) Welcome to Wikipedia, and please remember to assume good faith. Neither the quality of the product, nor the company's profitability matter for notability. Nor is anyone's nomination of a previously unsourced article about what seemed to be a non-notable company in anyway "baseless" or an "attack." Wikipedia is not a battleground, and AfD is not meant as an affront. Having said that, thanks for your contribution, and, again, welcome.--TheOtherBob 03:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • This debate has clearly stirred a great deal of feeling, which I suppose is understandable. I don't deny that editors have worked very hard to create this article and I can see how they may feel that their efforts are unappreciated. Let me assure you on my own behalf this is not the case. The purpose of an AfD discussion, IMO, is to bring to the attention of other users articles which, in their current form, do not match the Wikipedia notability criteria, articles which require a little bit more information or sourcing in order to make sure that they come up to scratch. Once this has been done (and efforts have certainly been made as regards to this article, although as has been pointed out I am not an expert in this field and cannot say whether it will be enough) there is no reason why the article may not remain on Wikipedia--Edchilvers 16:20, 1 December 2006 (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.