Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alien Technology

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alien Technology

Advert, Not Notable. StanMan 15:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Not advert, information very reliable and about a well-know company in the RFID industry. Alien is one key company for the Fargo, ND article. Company created 300 new jobs in the city and is one of the biggest non-government employeers in the city. --Bschott 16:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, probably the least-adlike article on a company I have seen. Nominator has no other edits. Recury 16:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per above. --Merovingian (T, C, @) 16:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Alien is notable like a notable thing. -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, just remove extraneous info, like Board of Directors and such. — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete User Bschott has tried to delete the Deletion notice and there are reasons to believe that he is from the company. Also seems that Bschott is not familiar with Afd process - there is no such tag as Do Not Delete - should have been Delete or Keep The page looks like advertising and not following the Notable requirements of Wiki. Bschott - please explain your relation to the company. StanMan 21:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Note that user conduct has no bearing on the outcome of a deletion discussion. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, 1) it's my first time fighting a deletion 2) I am not going to give out personal information like that on the interwebs. There is no way to confirm where I work so what is the point? I could work for the City of Fargo, work for the company, be a proud citizen of the city, or just have an interest in RFID 3) and it seems that a majority of people disagree with your opinion Stan. In any case, as pointed out, this is a discussion on article and has no bearing on if it will be deleted or not. But if you really want to know who I am, then check out YouTube for my username. --Bschott 21:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Please take personal conversations to StanMan's talk page, or to the Talk page of the article itself if it's going to stay on-topic to it. Who you aren't isn't relevant to deletion, contrary to his assertions. (See WP:AUTO for what it is relevant to.) — Saxifrage ✎ 21:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but expand with WP:V. Zos 21:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I would gladly update the page, but I am unsure of what you would concider in need of verfifiable sources? The company website, which is linked in the article, and the two other IPO related articles can confirm anything on the page. Actually, since they filed for IPO, the FTC would have a public copy of the Filing on the internet, which explains every minute detail about that company. Would a link to that be good enough for the Verification? I mean if it's good enough for the FTC and Nasdaq... --Bschott 21:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The Google Test (using "alien technology corp") gives 20,000+ hits. Among them (without doing an exhaustive read), there seem to be "multiple non-trivial published works" by independant sources. Though this isn't a rigorous test of Criterion #1 for corporations, it shows that Alien Technologies at least comes pretty damn close at worst. The article should be improved per Zos above, and I do think the listing of the Board should be removed as non-notable. Additionally, the exhaustive listing of "investment partners" should be removed as non-notable (as far as Wikipedia is concerned) and replaced with a prose section on major partners of significance outside the walled garden of RFID tech. (IMNSHO.) — Saxifrage ✎ 21:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: It had been acknowledged that user Bschott is from the Company. Bschott had been warned from being biased and/or deleting Wiki Policy messages. Following the concensus here - If article cleaned up, willing to reconsider. StanMan 14:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• 2nd Comment: It appears that Bschott is the only contributing editor made cahnges (he is from the company) to the page but the page still NOT following concensus here per WP:V or WP:NEU. In reference, please read WP:NEU

  Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's three content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. Because the three policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three. These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Their policy pages may be edited only to better reflect practical explanation and application of these principles.

  StanMan 16:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  • This is not an appropriate place to have this discussion. What you are commenting on has no bearing on deletion. Please restrict your discussion of issues with the article unrelated to deletion to the article's discussion page. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Saxifrage, could you cite a Wiki policy regarding your note? Why does it has no bearing? Specifically: "These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus." StanMan 20:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Those policies guide what we may write, not what we may write about. I can't cite you any policy because there is nothing in the deletion policy about this. It doesn't mention bias because bias isn't relevant to the deletion policy. The closest I can find that even mentions the difference between what problems warrant deletion and what problems warrant fixing-by-editing is the second paragraph of Wikipedia:Deletion policy:

        "Articles and text which are capable of meeting these should usually be remedied by editing, but content which fails inclusion criteria for Wikipedia, is incapable of verification with reputable sources, or is in breach of copyright policy, is usually deleted."

      • An article being edited by a biased editor doesn't fall under inclusion criteria, verification policy, or copyright policy. Furthermore User:Bschott is not the sole contributor to the article, only the most recent of many according to the article's edit history. Even if he was, that would not warrant deletion. Consider an example: if the sole contributor to George W. Bush was Bush himself, should we delete the article? No, because it is an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article. Instead, it should be edited to conform to our content policies. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:51, 18 July 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.