Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TTI Telecom

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The result was WITHDRAWN; given the different before and after, a re-start would be needed if someone still wants to delete this. -Splash - tk 20:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TTI Telecom

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

Speedy deleted as blatant advertising, just restored when deletion contested. There may be an article to be written on this company which satisfies notability guidelines, but this peacock term-ridden advert isn't it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Nomination withdrawn, because the article has been completely rewritten, in neutral terms and with refs which demonstrate notability per WP:CORP's requirement of substantial coverage in secondary sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. —A. B. (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. —A. B. (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. —A. B. (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I just started a rewrite although more work needs to be done and I may not have time to finish during this AfD. This was one of a series of spammy TTI Telecom-related articles added by an editor with a conflict of interest; see Talk:List of network management systems for details. I have proposed all the other TTI Telecom-related articles for deletion. This company is definitely notable: NASDAQ-listed, $461 million in revenues. Google News Archive search produces 567 hits; although 80% to 90% are press releases, there are still several dozen to establish notability from major publications such as Forbes and the Jerusalem Post. 100s of authoritative EDGAR reports available from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission provide a rich source of reliable company data (110-page sample); they are self-published by the company but closely reviewed by SEC staff and, in the case of the financial statements in their Form 20-F filings, Ernst & Young (independent external auditors). --A. B. (talk) 15:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per A. B. and evaluate new article on its own merits. A. B. promises it will overcome prior reason for deletion, and won't be the same article, so let's give it a chance! Wikidemo 19:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC) note - this afd nomination has been around so long I voted twice without realizing it - see below - Wikidemo 14:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Clearly with the list of products and being a link farm it is spam. However, an article with a more encyclopedic tone that meets #WP:POV, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:CORP would clearly be OK. One option is to move it to user space for the cleanup. Vegaswikian 22:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    • See what you think of the rewriting done to date (there's more to do). --A. B. (talk) 23:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Well there are some improvements. I did more tone editing and formatting. However, needs to show how it meets WP:CORP and I did not look at the sources. Vegaswikian 06:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, we; I've done more to the article. Light Reading, a United Business Media property, is an industry web-only publication and one of the best and widest read; its articles are editorial supervised[1] and it has a staff of about 20[2] editors.[3][4] In addition to citing several Light Reading articles, I also included citations to Light Reading's "who makes what" lists; this is because they also have capsule descriptions of what these industry-jargon terms mean. I included Jerusalem Post and Wall Street Journal citations; unfortunately, the Jerusalem Post articles are abstracts. The WSJ profile may be behind a paywall but I have a subscription and have looked at it. There's more out there; this is what I've been able to do so far.--A. B. (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I still fail to see where it meets WP:CORP. Size is not everything, but 350 employees and $40 million is generally not notable. There may be a ton of references, but nothing in the text with correct citations that supports notability. In summing up, there appears to be two side. It does not meet WP:CORP or WP:ILIKEIT. I guess that at this point the closing admin will decide which is the stronger position. Vegaswikian 23:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I still cannot see any evidence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources (press releases not included). The Google News hits are all press releases as far as I can tell. The "Press coverage summary on TTI's web site" is no use: One of the article it lists is written by a employee at TTI Telecom, which wouldn't be independent enough, and doesn't otherwise mention the company in any case. Several of them ask the TTI Telecom vice president for a 3 line comment, but otherwise say nothing on the company. The rest are simply articles about the technology and don't mention TTI Telecom at all. The "Authoritative company reports" are primary sources, and are all-inclusive (many companies will have one, so it proves nothing). —gorgan_almighty 12:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Obvious keep. Whatever the article was when nominated, it's neutral now. As a 350+ employee, $40 million public company it's clearly notable and there are multiple significant sources.Wikidemo 22:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Neutral is nice, but it is not notability. Vegaswikian 23:51, 7 November 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.