Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akaza Research

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Akaza Research

Akaza Research (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable company, spammy article. ukexpat (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete seems like an advertisement also non notable. BigDuncTalk 19:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, there are several third party source, and I am in the process of adding more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idegtev (talk • contribs) 19:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It is the largest free (open-source) clinical trials software available. To clinical researchers it is certainly notable. I need time to edit it to conform to guidelines. It has already been accused of not being notable by someone who didn't read it, but after he did he decided that it was and kept it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idegtev (talk • contribs) 19:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep – For now! The article was created less than 2 hours ago! At the very most it should have been {PROD} tagged. The article states Notability has added references. (Though I have not had a chance to check-out yet). We should at least give our contributors time enough to finish a piece before we recommend it for deletion. ShoesssS Talk 19:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment – I am letting my Keep opinion stand! The article as of today is, in my mind, well written – sourced – referenced and has established Notability. In addition, in my research, I was able to find additional news articles concerning the company, as shown here [1], that the author may want to utilize for reference material in the piece. Good luck to you. ShoesssS Talk 18:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Thanks for your help, I will be including more sources as the article is just bare bones as of now. I really appreciate it. Idegtev (talk) 18:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • That page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion. It does nothing but promote some entity and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 23:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with Shoesss, they're obviously still working on this. Granted, it's a blatant COI, but it has a lot of sources that make it look like it may be notable regardless. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. A non-consumer business without a public face, this is apparently some sort of consultancy providing data management services for medical clinical tests. Conflict of interest problems have already been noted. Several of the references do not seem to actually mention this business, and none of them seem to be in general interest publications. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Which doesn't mention it? I do not think there is a conflict of interest I am making this in my own time and I am not a part of the company, just helping out during the summer. I am doing this from my house during my own time. There is a client website that specifically mentions OpenClinica, and you may feel free to search yourself. Again, OpenClinica is an open source program, freely available for download. The consulting services are provided for those who need them. 66.31.48.63 (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Even your comments here sound like an advertisement we have read the article and know what it is. BigDuncTalk 19:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Ok, then can someone explain why this article exists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_Forward Phase Forward is in the same industry Akaza is in, and a simple Google search came up with an article for it in Wikipedia. Following your logic, this must also be advertisement. All of their sources are from press releases and most of the article focuses on the former CEO. It is obviously more developed but they have also undoubtedly had much more time to do so. The Akaza entry has been up for two days... Just want to see what you guys think. Thanks. Idegtev (talk) 16:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
While WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep an article, they do appear to be a public company, which Akaza does not appear to be. Could this be the difference? — BradV 16:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Also before it was mentioned that my comments sounded like advertisement. Again, I have absolutely nothing to advertise, I am a college student who is helping out. The money I earn is from making databases during the summer, this was my idea and I am the only one who is working on this. I mention that OpenClinica is free simply because I believe that is what is notable about Akaza. The firm's income is based around support for the product to those that need it and different licensing. To use the previous example, Phase Forward provides a similar product but it is not open source. My only "interest" is in successfully making my first Wikipedia article, which is why I am even bothering to argue for this. Idegtev (talk) 17:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. It still reads like an advertisement, but there are sufficient sources to allow for improving the article. BradV 15:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Just wanted to make another note about notability. Bio-IT World recently had an article about Akaza and OpenClinica. The core difference between the open-source model and the other EDC's is discussed. The article can be found here: http://www.bio-itworld.com/ecliniqua/2008/06/02/akaza-openclinica-no-cost-edc.html?terms=open+source Thanks for your consideration, I am still working on the entry. Idegtev (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I wanted to mention that I was the person who first tried to speedy this -- although I beg to differ mildly with the creator's suggestion that I hadn't read it. What got me to remove my own tag in the first place was the suggestion that this is the best-supported open source software for clinical trials; once I gave it some thought, I felt that that was more notable than I had first considered. And, coincidentally, a colleague pointed out a symposium in my home city on precisely this sort of topic, which means it's getting considerable academic attention. Yes, the original article was a COI, but I felt this individual was trying to work within COI boundaries, had adequately disclosed, and was in a very good position to provide the most useful information and resources. I do think this is an important topic and I'd like to see this article kept and added to. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment See, for instance, [2] this link, which indicates the level of academic interest in this area. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep and Desperately in need of a cleanuprewrite. It's far too spammy for an encyclopaedia article, and could be better sourced if it was truly notable. Once that's done, we can have another look at it. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I've had a go at cleaning it up: it reads like it could have come from the Akaza Research or OpenClinica website, and now believe it needs to be completely re-written. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Can you give me more suggestions on how to make it sound more like a Wikipedia article? Originally parts of it were indeed from the website, but it has been totally rewritten since then, in fact about an hour since it was first put online. It now contains mostly third party facts, as well as my own description of the company and Openclinica. What do you feel needs to be removed? Idegtev (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment OpenClinica seems, to me, to be more notable than Akaza Research. Is there any possibility of making the software into the basic topic of the article - essentially starting over with an OpenClinica article? Tim Ross (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article features some truly crap, press-release-sounding prose, but a need for cleanup is no rationale to delete. Sourced enough to satisfy our guidelines. Ford MF (talk) 23:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I've been working on the article over the past several days, and I am wondering if you guys can see any improvement. I think I have made it more informative as well as to-the-point and non-biased. Idegtev (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)