Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boardex

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 keep. Article has improved since the AfD nomination, and non-trivial sourcing has been added to establish WP:CORP notability. No consensus to delete, and all recent comments agree on keeping the article. Jamie^☆S93 12:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boardex

Speedy A7 declined as a borderline case. The creator believes that the size of the database built by this company is by itself an assertion of notability. Problem is, there does not seem to be reliable third-party sources about this company on the Net, and Google returns a few hits that are about another company with the same name, though capitalized differently. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet any notability criteria. Johndowning (talk) 03:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. American Eagle (talk) 05:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:CORP. Iowateen (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(the following is copied from the article talk page. I'll leave a note for the editor letting them know the AfD is the place to make these arguments. No opinion on deletion, just boldly lending a hand.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

There over 20 academic articles, conducted by highly qualified professors from world class institutions, that state BoardEx is the primary source of information and analysis.
All these articles are found by going to Google Scholar and typing in BoardEx.
In addition, there have been 5 articles in the Financial Times that quote BoardEx as a source of data that substantiates an important point.
BoardEx meets every criteria for being Notable, if not indeed important, from both an academic and organisation perspective.
Looking at the bottom of the BoardEx website it lists a number of clients that are well know, reputable companies.
Surely anyone suggesting deletion needs to employ a bit of basic research before expressing an unqualified and what appears to be personal opinion based on no facts.
If deletion is based on consensus then my view is of no value as sadly the others did no research before making theirs.

Glfmwood (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

- 20 academic articles? Where are they, so that we may take a look at them? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see below for cross section of academic papers based on Boardex plus press coverage.

I hope this satisfies your concerns

CDT007 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Okay. I looked at the first three of the above-mentioned references. None of them have anything whatsoever about Boardex. So they are basically useless in this discussion. Sorry, but I must assume that the other 17 are just as useless, unless you can show otherwise. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I use BoardEx as a core new business tool. It not only holds the data claimed but it's the most comprehensive and accurate dat on leading business people available anywhere. The service is notable in that it is changing the way businesses use their contact networks to better effect. The list of articles given above is independent testrimony to the extent, quality and value of the service; many of them could not have been written without the BoardEx database and its analytical software showing the relatrionships between its data subjects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapier66 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep' - We have an article about a vegetarian themed video game (Steer Madness) which is sold less than 1,000 copies while we have here a tool being used by fortune 500 companies.^[1] --Maverx (talk) 01:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That game has nothing to do with the notability of this. Iowateen (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I went through most of the references supplied. None actually mentioned Boardex. I think that CDT007 maybe meant that these articles used Boardex in their research, but this does not equate notability, neither does being used by Fortune 500 companies. What we are looking for are sources writing specifically about Boardex without which it would be impossible to write a proper encyclopedia article. If it is an important product these sort of sources should not be hard to find. --Leivick (talk) 02:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep New sources added show notability. --Leivick (talk) 23:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found three sources on BoardEx (not in passing as part of a research paper) and added them to the article. The Management Today article is on EBSCOhost and the Financial News articles are on LexisNexis. Shubinator (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article now well referenced to demonstrate notability. Well done to Maverx and Shubinator on the referencing. Paxse (talk) 17:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been nominated to DYK, sources have been backed-up by extensive referrences.--Maverx (talk) 05:22, 15 May 2009 (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.

^ http://boardex.com/client_list.htm

[1] ttp://boardex.com/client_list.htm

[1]