Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panorama Software (BI)
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The result was Withdrawn by nominator; article has been thoroughly rewritten and referenced. - Smerdis of Tlön 11:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Panorama Software (BI)
Contested PROD. This article:
- Reads like an advertisement. It's a business "specializing in MDX based Business Intelligence solutions." The use of the word "solution" in this nonstandard manner is a dead giveaway of promotional marketing-speak. FWIW, "business intelligence", as our pitiful article on the subject makes clear, seems to be another vaguely utopian and buzzwordy neologism used by software vendors to make their data-gathering software seem wondrously transformative.
- Is almost free from context. The asserted claim to notability is that this business sold some sort of "OLAP technology" to Microsoft in 1996. What's an OLAP? This stuff requires some explanation or at least links for the uninitated before it establishes sufficient context to claim this business is notable.
- Is free from references to reliable sources. The only reference given is an external link to this business's website.
Delete for these reasons. See also this discussion of a possibly related page. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- OLAP. You can find documentation of this company's sale of technology to Microsoft on page xix of ISBN 1846281741, page 265 of ISBN 0130809020, and page 431 of ISBN 0789713276. Uncle G 20:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep, according to WP:COMPANY, a company is notable if the "scope of activities are national or international in scale." According to this article, it serves customers globally. The reason I'm saying weak though is the lack of content and sources. *Cremepuff222* 21:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- That only applies to non-commercial organizations, and isn't a good criterion to use in any case, because (as the guidelines say) it is only a rough guide to what is usually notable, a shortcut that doesn't always get to the right place. Uncle G 01:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep so weak it might crumble, because of the same reasons Cremepuff said. It's valid, but needs content and sources. ~EdBoy[c] 21:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, I've cleaned it up some, needs sources. This is a significant second-tier database software vendor with plenty of reliable sources available.
The background here is that there's a group of image stitching editors, and image stitchers are used to create panoramas. They thought that they needed Panorama Software to be the top of the category Category:Panorama software (then incorrectly capitalized as Category:Panorama Software), and so it was nominated for deletion to get it out of the way, and then somebody decided it should be disambiguated with the (BI). Or maybe the other way around. They're confused. Anyway, now they have Panorama Stitchers, Viewers and Utilities, which apparently is supposed to be the category top, but they also have Panorama Software because the AFD was closed as keep since the closing admin could not determine what there was consensus for. (It doesn't help that the image-stitcher editors all have a years-long feud predating Wikipedia.)
It is my contention that this article should be at Panorama Software and that the stitchers article (which has a dumb name) could possibly be at Panorama software and head up the same-named category. A hatnote can take care of any confusion. They didn't seem to know about that. --Dhartung | Talk 21:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. First of all, it's misnamed. It lacks notability, and, as tagged, reads like an advert. We've got two weak keeps and a "keep but it needs sources". This adds up to a "delete", methinks. Unschool 04:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Being misnamed is a reason for renaming, and does not involve deletion in any way, per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. And it is best for AFD if your conclusion is your own, rather than a summary of other people's. You say that it lacks notability. Upon what research is that based? How does the subject fail to satisfy our WP:CORP criteria? Uncle G 07:39, 24 May 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.
