Talk:Openda
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Speedy Deletion?
Not sure why this page was been put up for speedy deletion, when NetSuite and Sage are similar companies. I agree that it is a little short, with no citations etc., but I have just started it! See the following for a list of similar companies
Kolonuk 14:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- The difference is that those companies are either quite large (Sage), so notability is not questioned, or they have references that demonstrate their notability (NetSuite). You might want to check WP:CORP for ways to establish notability for Openda. To quote the primary criterion:
A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable.
--S.K. 18:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)- Hi Kolonuk, I see that you are really improving the article and that you have added references. But after having looked through them, I'm not really convinced they fulfill the above criteria. The depth of coverage in all the secondary sources you have provided up to now consists of mentioning the company name, there is normally not a single sentence covering the company in more detail. I'll continue to wait for a while, but if this remains the depth of coverage, I probably will ask for the article to be deleted. Please don't take that personal, but there have to be some criteria for what belongs in wikipedia, and what not. --S.K. 19:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Cheers. This is my first article from scratch, and i am learning new things all the time. As for the references, I didn't realise that there wasn't much out there! I will keep hunting around for stuff to make it more complete. Kolonuk 10:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Kolonuk, I see that you are really improving the article and that you have added references. But after having looked through them, I'm not really convinced they fulfill the above criteria. The depth of coverage in all the secondary sources you have provided up to now consists of mentioning the company name, there is normally not a single sentence covering the company in more detail. I'll continue to wait for a while, but if this remains the depth of coverage, I probably will ask for the article to be deleted. Please don't take that personal, but there have to be some criteria for what belongs in wikipedia, and what not. --S.K. 19:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
