Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Wagner Associates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Naconkantari 02:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Wagner Associates

Fails WP:CORP, Google search brings up 9 hits with the top two being the Wiki article. --Wafulz 22:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Also nominating Daniel H. Wagner, Associates, which holds different text, but covers the same topic. --Wafulz 22:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Another Correction of factual nature: I am sorry to User:Wafulz but due to the REDIRECT added recently, only the Daniel H. Wagner, Associates article remains. So please do not look for the Daniel Wagner Associates article as it does not exist as such and you will be redirects to Daniel H. Wagner, Associates --MxM Peace 21:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: User:MathStatWoman created the other page (whichever it is) as a backup in case the other was deleted. Both are the same thing. Chris53516 21:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Correction the above user has made a factual error because:
      1). User has wrongly used the incorrect and shortened name;
      2). has failed to combine the results from the different searches that need to be done - Name could be "Daniel Wagner Associates", "Daniel H. Wagner, Associates" with the comma, "Daniel H. Wagner Associates", without the comma, "Daniel H. Wagner Associates Inc." with the Inc or incorporated; etc, etc and also a close check on "Daniel Wagner" and "Daniel H. Wagner". I get over 700 hits with just "Daniel H. Wagner Associates". I have not done the other combinations but the number will grow. So I suggest you completely ignore the above comment has it is factually incorrect Hari Singh 20:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Correction Hari Singh has made a factual error because Google searches search on text only. Commas are ignored. Therefore searching for "Daniel H. Wagner, Associates" will return exactly the same results as searching for "Daniel H. Wagner Associates". Adding "Inc" onto the end will only bring up results that were already returned in the search for the shorter string. So I suggest you completely ignore the above comment as it is factually incorrect Fan-1967 21:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete — Qualifies as self-promotion and advertising. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 00:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable DARPA company. Much work was on US Defence Force contract and so secret. Dlyons493 Talk 01:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. If it's secret, you can't prove it warrants encyclopedic entry. Wryspy 07:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Wafulz. —Michael Hays 16:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, Google using full corporate name of Daniel H. Wagner Associates, doing the Google research properly, shows 10 pages of illustrious history and achievements. MathStatWoman 16:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Do not Delete please Try this: Google using full name Daniel H. Wagner, Associates. MathStatWoman 16:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Google Properly Please: The full name of the corporation is Daniel H. Wagner, Associates. Google using; Daniel H. Wagner Associates, and you will get ten pages of entries about its long and illustrious history. Do this research. Google properly, and you shall see they are no lightweights —Preceding unsigned comment added by MathStatWoman (talk • contribs)
  • Note that MathStatWoman has created another article (with different text) at Daniel H. Wagner, Associates. Please don't do that; we have a procedure for renaming articles that users will assist you with if asked. Gazpacho 17:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, does appear notable according to the other page. Gazpacho 18:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Has the company been the subject of any non-trivial third party coverage? Even using the proper name, I haven't been able to find any sort of news coverage, or listing under Forbes 500 or Fortune 500. According to this the company is still listed as a small business. Also, can anyone comment on the Daniel H. Wagner Prize? I see companies like IBM have won it, but I don't know much past this (ie, the prestige of the award). --Wafulz 22:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. About Daniel Wagner, Associates Striking out user's third vote --Wafulz 04:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, third party: recognized as one of 200 best small corporations, Forbes, 2000; by the Navy, 1999 and 1997; by NIH twice in the 1990s. All available via Google. MathStatWoman 02:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • First, can you give us these links? Saying they're available via Google doesn't do much. Second, stop saying "Keep" at the start of every comment you make. It's unnecessary and confusing. --Wafulz 04:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete because it doesn't provide useful content other than that of a private, for-profit organization, which is not encyclopedic content. Chris53516 14:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Is a notable organisation with a specialisation in a challenging field; has longevity being formed in 1963; has won [government departmental award]; meets the WP:CORP criterion; . With Google produced over 10k responses (not restricted or reviewed). The fact that it is a with-profits organisation is irrelevant – so is Microsoft. That's a rubbish argument. If the "delete camp" do not give valid and properly argued reasons, their views should be ignored. Only valid and sustained points should be taken into account. This is not a vote but a discussion!!! User:Wryspy said: "If it's secret, you can't prove it warrants encyclopedic entry" How about the FBI then – They are secret and so should not be listed, if this user is to be believed. The Proposer has made a factual error in the Google search Hari Singh 20:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Can you please give me a working link? The one you've posted is dead. The fact that the company makes money doesn't make a difference- that's not what we're looking at. What we're looking at are two things: Is the company notable, and is information about it verifiable. So far, I've been given Google search terms to use, a link to a Navy search engine, a dead link, and some evidence that the company has done business with the government. In order to merit an article, the company should have achieved more than just existing and conducting business. Could you give me a specific independent third-party source on the company? Also, can someone address the relative importance of the award that the company presents? I'm getting a lot of results for it when searching for information on the company. --Wafulz 23:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

User:MathStatWoman should no longer vote, since she has voted 3 times already. If you vote again, or if you vote with a sock-puppet, it will be struck-out.

  • Strong Keep as per the reasons given by Hari Singh above --MxM Peace 21:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Warning: The above user is brand new, and has only edited this and his/her user page and talk page, other than this article. The user may be a sock puppet of another user that has already contributed to this article. Chris53516 21:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

  • Response to Wafulz

Here are some links, there are more, but I am tired

Report of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Accident, Volume III. See this about how Daniel H. Wagner Assoc searched for & found pieces of the Space Shuttle Challenger that had crashed.

The Process of Search Planning: Current Approaches and Continuing Problems, Lawrence D. Stone, Operations Research, Vol. 31, No. 2 (Mar. - Apr., 1983), pp. 207-233

From US Navy: http://www.navysbir.brtrc.com/navySearch/search/search.aspx

There are many more; but you are young and I am older and more tired. Goodnight. MathStatWoman 05:26, 23 August 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.