Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Escape Technology

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; sources provided do not address the original problems with the article. ➔ REDVEЯS has a new (red) iPod 19:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Escape Technology

Escape Technology (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete nn company; fails WP:CORP - was tagged speedy as spam, and it smells a little spammy but less than many so tagged - was created by a SPA (User:EscapeTechwriter). Carlossuarez46 03:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Pure spam. Created by an SPA who could not be bothered to provide any third-party refs. -- RHaworth 03:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - has not demonstrated notability. I couldn't find secondary sources of substance. SkerHawx 19:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm the author. I really resent you guys calling it spam. I intended to try to get an explanation to the reviewers before people started shooting. Here's my thought. I love Wikipedia. I use it daily, and consider it a fantastic resource. For me, it's equal to Google. I would like our company to be represented in Wikipedia, as I'm sure many small companies would like to be. When our potential customers search the web, having a Wikipedia entry adds credibility. We are a company that has helped thousands of users, and saved the taxpayer a lot of money with our systems which are much more efficient. In the end, we help students, because the Admin is being handled more efficiently. I certainly saw the message about "don't write about yourself or your company." I reviewed pages on other companies such as Borland, Clarion and the like. Why is our company less deserving of having a Wikipedia page. Is it solely because I would have to have someone else do the submission? I appreciate someone saying it smells less spammy. I took hours to write this, such that it reads like a set of facts. I think it is free of marketing gibberish or boasting of any kind. We are a company that has dedicated our professional lives to the business of education. We get new business mainly by word of mouth. I have a 5 day per month salesperson. I apologize for the fact that I did not include any references. Maybe I don't understand this well enough to find any, as I don't know of any. In any case, I don't believe this should be the criteria for inclusion in the world of Wikipedia. Perhaps you could consider how companies such as ours can be included. I would have no problem with some type of disclaimer that says the information was provided by the company. Thank you for your consideration, and any advice you can provide such that our company can be included. Bob Towery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EscapeTechwriter (talk • contribs) 18:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Bob, I know it can be frustrating to write an article and have it considered for deletion. I've been there. Please bear in mind that a discussion of the notability of a company does not mean the company isn't successful, important or famous. It simply is an evaluation of whether or not the company has merited an entry in an encyclopedia. Here are some links that might help you in the course of a re-write: WP:COMPANY, while being careful of WP:COI since you're apparently an employee of the company in question. To your question about references, if there aren't available secondary source references, that's usually sufficient to have an article deleted, no matter how well the article is written since Wikipedia isn't a directory. Good luck. SkerHawx 19:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Thank you SkerHawx. I have read the pages on verifiable references. I don't believe our firm has been written up in such a way that qualifies. While it looks like we are headed for the trash heap here, hopefully I have generated some discussion fodder. I can tell you that as a Wikipedia user, I don't come here for the references. I come here for what the people have contributed. As to having a COI because I am an employee, my only choice there really is to be the ghost author for a "shill," something I'm not willing to do. I maintain that there are a class of entities, which being excluded, do not benefit the users of Wikipedia. We will never be "famous." If you have to be famous (i.e. written about elsewhere) to be in Wikipedia, well then Wikipedia is a different animal than what I thought it was. I do appreciate everyone's time, no matter which side of the argument you are on. EscapeTechwriter 19:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Also, hopefully everyone sees that my choice of a user name was deliberate, to identify myself, with no attempt at subterfuge. The comment about my account being a SPA is interesting. As much as I use and enjoy Wikipedia, I hadn't really thought that I should be a contributor. I'll rethink that since I have some expertise in a few areas. I definitely like to give back any time I'm enjoying a product or service. EscapeTechwriter 21:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 08:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Comment - Here are some references. (1) Sacramento Business Journal. (August 29, 1988) Escape Technology keeps close tabs on schools. (company profile). Volume 5; Issue 22; Page 34. (2) Swartz, Jon. (June 7, 1996) San Francisco Chronicle Netcape wants final word on suffix. Section: Business; Page B1. (3)Gammon, Robert. (February 23, 2003) Alameda Times-Star Jordan could've done more, others say. Jordan says there were no red flags. Section: Headline News. (4) P & J (May 10, 2004) Families in focus at entrepreneur awards. -- Jreferee t/c 07:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC) Revised to Keep in view of sufficient reliable source material. -- Jreferee t/c 16:47, 11 October 2007 (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.