Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Itransition

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-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Itransition

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

Subject company does not appear to meet WP:CORP; I originally tagged this as a speedy, but this was contested by the primary author so I thought an AfD would be a better option. My opinion is Delete.--Isotope23 15:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi I disagree to the matter, the text was written in neutral style according to wiki's requirements and it does not contain any advert hints but just brief information about the company. thanx Nevalex 16:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC) nevalex—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nevalex (talk • contribs).

• Delete. Just did some searching and couldn't find a single newspaper article online or any reference in 90+ databases regarding this company. Unless someone can provide some, it doesn't meet our notability guidelines. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 16:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Itransition Company participates in the international IT exhibit CeBIT'2007 http://www.cebit.de/ held at Hannover, Germany. This will be the fourth time our company showcases its services at this major trade fair in the IT world. Nevalex 16:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Also Itransition Software was mentioned in top 10 Development Companies, that took part in The 2007 Global Outsourcing. This event was highlighted by Fortune Magazine. The recommendations and notifications were sent by Jag Dalal Chairman, The 2007 Global Outsourcing Judges’ Panel and Managing Director, Thought Leadership, IAOP... Nevalex 16:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Please also consider our contributions to Wiki as an article on custom software development and nearsourcing I aslo plan to add some useful information to offshore software development and IT outsoursing themes which will be quite of interested for Wiki's readers and people involved. Nevalex 16:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• The Nearsourcing article is its own problem... No sources, no verifiable information that this company actually coined the phrase or the concept, and it may be a neologism as well.--Isotope23 16:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Nearsourcing - is the concept, that was worked out by the company and it is company's property. There is no need to use any sources for brining out a new concept as the company has wide experience in the outsourcing and software development field and enough data to make its own conclusions - I think it is fair enough. One of Wiki's concepts - is to bring knowledge to everyone who needs it... Why not share our knowledge with other people? You stated right... that you were not aware of this term - so here is our contribution to the community. Regards Nevalex 17:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

There absolutely is every reason why you need to use sources. Please take some time to read WP:ATT. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Isotope23 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

I will repeat that again - the concept is brought within the company based on its experience.... Our company has its own data bank where it keeps all data, innovations, conclusions - you may call it Itransition's Wiki - we base on our own sources Nevalex 17:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

And I will repeat again, WP:ATT. Here at Wikipedia, articles must be verifiable by reliable 3rd party sources. You cannot base on article on your own sources; it needs verifiable 3rd party sourcing and ideally they should establish that the company meets our WP:CORP guideline. Right now that is simply not the case.--Isotope23 17:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok I got it.... Please let me have one day to adapt the Itransition page to the WP's.... Nevalex 19:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

AfDs run for 5 days before they are closed, so any changes made in that time can be considered.--Isotope23 19:31, 1 March 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.