User talk:Datamonitor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Datamonitor
2 Welcome
3 Notability
4 Datamonitor
5 Datamonitor continued
6 Datamonitor article
7 Datamonitor, again

[edit] Datamonitor

Hi Jenny, thanks for taking the time to leave a message on my talk page about the Datamonitor article. I am indeed the admin who deleted this article. I did this was because I do not believe the article has an "assertion of notability". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its primary purpose is to gather and summarize information that has been reported elsewhere. A core part of Wikipedia's policies is the notion of verifiability - we only work from reliable, independent sources that report on a subject. So for example, a person is not included in Wikipedia until a newspaper or similar source has reported on them. Just being a worthy person isn't enough to warrant an article. Once you have risen to the level of fame where you are notable enough to be reported on, then we can include an article about you.

The same is true of companies. In this case I couldn't find anywhere in the article where you made a claim that Datamonitor had reached an appropriate level of notability. We have a specific guideline for companies that we use, you can read it here. If you believe that Datamonitor does in fact qualify under any of the Criteria for companies and corporations from the guidelines then please let me know, along with some evidence, and I will undelete the article for you.

Good luck, and welcome to Wikipedia, Gwernol 14:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jenny. I have undeleted the Datamonitor article for you. However I have also edited it for a couple of reasons. First the text was a direct copy from your website which is likely a copyright violation. At the least by putting your text on Wikipedia you have licensed it under the GFDL which means you have effectively relinquished most claims to copyright ownership that you may have had. Second it read like an advert for your company and was inappropriate for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a venue for promotional material for any company, and the text of the article was particularly full of promotional language. I have reduced it to some bare facts.

You can add information to the article, but it must not be promotional, it must be purely factual. You cannot say you are one the "the leading consulting companies" for example, unless an independent source has said that about you.

I have also added a company inforbox, which you might like to expand.

For the other companies, the fact that they are subsidaries of Datamonitor is helpful, but you still need to provide (in the articles) evidence of notability for each. You might consider adding them as a section of the main Datamonitor article instead of as separate articles.

Let me know if I can help you further. Best, Gwernol 12:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Datamonitor, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Brian 19:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)btball

[edit] Notability

I see Gwernol has already referred you to wp:corp ... From the Datamonitor article it isn't clear to me that it meets wp:corp so I've added the proposed deletion tag. If it *does* meet wp:corp, it would help if you say why in the article or on its talk page. Thanks Brian 19:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)btball ==Hi, I see you've removed the {{prod}} tag. However, I still don't see how this article passes wp:corp. I know it doesn't pass criteria #2 or #3 and my Google searches don't find sources for #1 either: "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.

   * This criterion excludes:
         o Media re-prints of press releases, other publications where the company or corporation talks about itself, and advertising for the company. 1
         o Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories.
   * This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.".

If there *are* sources that show how Datamonitor passes WP:CORP can you please provide them here or in the article? Thanks Brian 15:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)btball

[edit] Datamonitor

Hi Jenny,

First a procedural point. It is not appropriate for you to ask for personally identifying information about any editor on Wikipedia. I will not give out my personal phone number to any person.

Please read the Wikipedia guidelines on notability here. Specifically look at the WP:CORP guidelines. The sources you provide need to show that Datamonitor meets at least one of these criteria.

The quality or otherwise of the Gartner article is irrelevant. I'm sure you'll agree that just because one article doesn't meet the rules, it does not mean that every article can.

You say "We are a reputable company and wanted to use your service to provide people with information about our company". It is very important that you understand that Wikipedia is not a venue for you to promote your company. This is an encyclopedia not an advertising space. This is why we strongly discourage vanity articles which Datamonitor is.

You should also look at the reliable sources guidelines which tell you what a reliable source actually is. Gwernol 16:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Datamonitor continued

Hi Jenny, I'm not trying to be difficult - just trying to determine if this article meets WP:CORP or not. Right now, it seems not. I don't know about the Gartner article, maybe it needs to be improved or deleted too - but that's not really relevant to the Datamonitor discussion. First, I'm not easily reached by phone, I live in France most of the year and am travelling in the U.S. at the moment a discussion here is best, second best is email, I can be reached at btball@gmail.com - however this is a community consensus issue anyway - it's not my decision, I'm just one of thousands of editor. Link 2 does not meet the wp:corp guideline "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." It is a Nortel press release and mentions Datamonitor in passing. Datamonitor is not the subject, in that case, if a non-trivial published work whose source is independent of the company itself ... Link 1 just shows that Datamonitor is listed on a stock exchange - that doesn't satisfy any of the three criteria of wp:corp. Link 3 is the closest to meeting guideline 1 of wp:corp ... but it is only one reference and guideline one says "...multiple non-trivial published works...". Also, a clarification - we are not a "service" for letting people know about companies - Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia ... What qualifies as an entry in the Wikipedia encyclopedia is guided by verifiability and notability - in the case of corporations WP:CORP is the essential guideline and right now, it doesn't look like Datamonitor meets the criteria. You might also see WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not advertising ... and based on your statement above it seems to me that the reason you want this article here is to push people to your site (advertising). That's explicitly what Wikipedia is *not* about. I hope this helps. Brian 16:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)btball

[edit] Datamonitor article

I have stripped the Datamonitor article down to the bare facts that i was previously told i was allowed to have up. So could you please remove the deletion and leave the article as it appears now Many thanks Jenny

I will certainly not remove the deletion, since the Wikipedia process for debate should be allowed to reach its conclusion, not be subverted. However, I do appreciate the effort to remove the vanity aspects of the article. I have added some supporting evidence to the article and noted in the ongoing debate that I support keeping it. You are free to do the same here if you wish. By the way, someone ought to point out to the folks running the Datamonitor press center here that the current year is 2006, not 2007 and that providing links to the articles concerned instead of just names would be very, very helpful. Gwernol 11:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Datamonitor, again

Regarding the article, since the last afd, even though it was developing fine, it got a lot of content which diminished its encyclopedic value. That resulted in the arguments against the article which got it deleted in the first place come into play and that got it deleted.

For example, the timeline of its operations. That itself made the article promotional. If you want, I will restore it without the timeline. But it needs more work, like a description of what the company does is missing. Or some turnover info. That should be present but in a way that does not appear to be promotional. Regards, --soum ^talk 15:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Btw, if you use a non-organization name as your username, if your organization is not asking you to make edits, and follow the policies here (verifiability, atribution to reliable sources, and neutral point of view), you can edit the article. But it is preferable to limit yourself to correcting any factual errors and simple vandalism. --soum ^talk 15:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)