Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/10ticks

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. Although I think this might be salveagable, and I'll userfy it to my userspace Black Kite (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

10ticks

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Small company. Has received some mention in local newspapers but no really evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. As mentioned in the article, there is some good coverage in this book (pp. 33-34). Still, I agree with RHaworth that the local newspaper mentions are not enough to prove notability, and in the absence of any other sources, I think this should be deleted. If anyone finds another solid source, though, I could be persuaded to change my mind. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Company has 4 websites, www.10ticks.co.uk, www.10ticks.com.au, www.10ticks.co.za www.10ticks.com.my with partnerships in each region. If you can add the reference http://www.heinemann.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=149&Itemid=51 to the international book deal that could go some way to helping the page. Heinemann is an international publisher so this must surely add some credence. It is also part of a wider business Fisher Educational which owns www.websiteboffin.co.uk and www.boffinsquad.co.uk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgejones277 (talk • contribs) 11:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC) — Georgejones277 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Sorry, those things don't really make much difference to the outcome of deletion discussions. Have a look at Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies to see the kind of thing we are looking for, or this page for a quick and easy explanation. You probably also want to read the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is another article here on the Times Education website http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=2216530 and a magazine article here http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=344376 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgejones277 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC) — Georgejones277 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Thanks for the post Georgejones277, it is most useful. The TES is a very respectable source, of course, and if these were normal newspaper articles then they would be a strong indicator of notability. However, from the tone and the advertisements at the end, I can't shake the feeling that these must be press releases. Press releases definitely do not count towards notability, I'm afraid. Do others agree with my assessment, and have TES been known to do this before? I am surprised to see what look like press releases on their site. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor who originally nommed this for speedy before RHaworth took that down, delete per RHaworth. Specs112 t c 12:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The TES is not a press release, the school one in particular was done between the TES and a local school. 10ticks also appears in a journal article and a book which uses it to research e-businesses. The innovate my school ad should also go some way to completing this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgejones277 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC) — Georgejones277 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

delete - small local company with a narrow, specialist product line, as reflected by the local and specialist coverage. Fails the general notability guideline.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To further the notability argument admin should read carefully http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CORP and then follow the discussion below The book 10ticks features in is a "notable independent secondary source, All content is verifiable, All topics included are independent, There is no self promotion or advertising in the article, As over two and a half million people around the world use the products by 10ticks it fits the criteria of "whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education". All sources included are more then trivial "Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage". Sources are regional and there is more than one international source see "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary". All topics are from a mixture of sources one from south africa, two from Australia, two from the U.S, some local and some regional. Note that a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right. In this case, an article on the product may be appropriate, and notability of the company itself is not inherited as a result.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgejones277 (talk • contribs) — Georgejones277 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Redirect to Ian Fisher (mathematician) and create that article. The company is of questionable notability at present, and I tend towards a weak delete on whether it should have its own article. The company's founder though,comfortably meets inclusion guidelines (see particularly the newspaper links currently in the article), and the company information could be summarized at his page. I'm not wedded to the "mathematician" descriptor, but something is needed as the current blue link to his name is a disambiguation page with no link to this person. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If someone wants to create that article they can, though I see no indication he's notable as a mathematician: the only suggestion he's at all independently notable is a blog posting about tweets for maths teachers. Other than that he's an ex-teacher who owns a small company.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.