Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WebTrain

Add links
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 keep. PhilKnight (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WebTrain

[edit]
WebTrain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article was previously created by user:Gary WebTrain on this title and as WebTrain Communications. In both cases it was speedily deleted as spam. Gary has now persuaded another user to post it using the same text. Is the company and product notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa - I did not ask anyone to recreate the article. I do not know the person who did this. I was using my user page to get the content ready, once it was ready, I was going to confirm with Wiki admins BEFORE attempting to post. Gary WebTrain (talk) 23:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was user Micov (talk · contribs) who re-created it. — Athaenara ✉ 00:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary WebTrain (talk • contribs) 23:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps I jumped the gun, when I created the first article and it was speed deleted, it was blatant. No so much with the second, and the one that was reposted by someone else was a complete rewrite that is NPOV based. But I did not expect it to be posted, I was waiting until I had better references such as the links above.
Can someone PLEASE let me know which links above (non of which we host or created or had any influence and are on Google) are OK for references ? Note most are from .edu or govt sites. Thanks in advance Gary WebTrain (talk) 04:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine to have a discussion of references within an AfD debate. The list you provide includes no newspapers, magazines, or edited web sites that have a paid reporting staff, such as cnet.com or ziffdavis.com. You've offered us the web sites of individual firms or schools that have adopted your software, and you provide an award notice (in a government-hosted PDF file at bctia.org) that shows you received recognition in British Columbia. The WebTrain article links to a review of WebTrain at masternewmedia.org that is hard to evaluate; it appears to be a self-published personal site. How does your product compare to other products? Who are your competitors? Have any mainstream publications reviewed the product? You are not the first to think of doing conferences or training over the web. EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ed, I've improved the links, the link (now) shows the product review was performed by a 3rd party web conferencing expert that performs reviews on all major products. Thanks for your feedback on that, it will help others to not conclude the same. GaryECampbell (talk)
Hi Ed. The masternewmedia.org site is not a self published site, we had no involvment in the review. The masternewmedia.org site documents most of the web conferencing platforms, it is an independent review site. I agree, we were not the first, but most certainly, not recent, we've been doing this for 7 years now, way ahead of Adobe, WebHuddle and many others. Note I changed my username as per Wikipedian comments. The subpage is fine, and note I did not know the article was posted at WebTrain, an admin?? did this on their own accord. Note that I was informed to add an impact section - See the new content at User:GaryECampbell/Sandbox, impact citactions will be available shortly. I will follow your advice regarding 3rd party paid reporting - newspapers, cnet, ziffdavis. If you can suggest any more it would be much appreciated. I intend to have the article ready for review by July 15th (if that's ok with everyone). :) Oops, I forgot to mention, should I create the new content at User: GaryECampbell/Sandbox or at WebTrain ?? GaryECampbell (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note the improved content, better references, the review reference link shows it is clearly a 3rd party review. In comparison to other web conferencing vendors, this article is currently more compliant to Wiki policies than other web conferencing vendors who do not state references, display lists of their features, etc. This exercise is showing that the system works, the WebTrain article is getting better. BTW, I've submitted requests to 3rd party news / reporting organizations as suggested, I also have citations from notables pending. GaryECampbell (talk) 04:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you continue working on the article in your Sandbox, but post your changes in the WebTrain article until the AfD is over. Even if the AfD closes with Delete, you may still be able to get the material reconsidered when you finally finish it. I'm still not sure you understand what Wikipedia means by reliable sources. The proprietor of http://www.masternewmedia.org speaks only with his own authority as an individual, and he maintains what we call a self-published site. EdJohnston (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being in this space for over 8 years, I believe the proprietor of http://www.masternewmedia.org (Robin Good) is in fact an expert. The articles are unsolicted, his group digs deep to review all contenders. Whereas magazines such as PCMAG, CNET, etc have an application process and decide who to publish, Robin gives organizations an equal chance, regardless of their power and influence. His team just just digs them up and provides an very very detailed analysis, complete with screen shots of all features. The site is the most prominant reviewer on the net for web conferencing. Not all he states is favorable either. Note he sells reviews to organizations that need the complete details and comparisons, but that does not make the articels biased, more so, the content must be valid and represent true 3rd party opinions in order to be marketable. The site does more than web conferencing reviews, it's pretty deep into reviewing RSS technology and Telecom articles as well. GaryECampbell (talk) 07:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Changes

[edit]

Since the article is AfD, I posted information here to ensure everyone participating in the AfD reads it. See User:GaryECampbell/Sandbox for current proposed content as the WebTrain article is outdated. Should the article at WebTrain be updated? I've received one yes and one no from admins so I am unsure.

See User_talk:GaryECampbell for efforts todate and my Barnstar of Diligence award! The Minister of Economic Development for British Columbia (Colin Hansen), various universities and government site references - these sources would be considered reliable? BNET Business Network and PC Magazine references are 3rd party? The PC Magazine reference compares a small private Canadian company to the $Billion dollar WebEx public company as a contender. This is notable. It also reflects how early the organization was in the web conferencing space from a historical perspective. Added a section regarding a failed reverse takeover reported by BNET (major 3rd party source). In regards to other improvements, content could be added about the CEO and chairman (many major 3rd party sources) - See User_talk:Micov about possible additions - Comments invited. Lastly, I was horrified that when changing my username (as suggested by Wikipedians) User:RHaworth reported that the previous username was a suspected sockpuppet of my current username and posted a notice on [User:GaryECampbell]. Please note this was an error in judgement on his part, discussions and history show no such thing and the user name change was documented on numerous pages. Ouch but forgiven :) GaryECampbell (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the content at WebTrain as per above recommendations. GaryECampbell (talk) 05:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added 3rd party reference in lead section - Society for Technical Communication (stc.org) published a matrix comparison that compares WebTrain to other mainstream vendors. The addition was in response to the comment by EdJohnston that it lacks credible reviews in reliable sources to show its importance. GaryECampbell (talk) 07:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as the source cited in this article fail WP:RS and can at best be described as Questionable sources. Overall this article is clearly a promotional piece, containing vague and unsupported statements such as "The WebTrain concept was developed in 1998 by Gary Campbell for the purpose of reducing training costs for off-site business clients". The article content and style fails WP:SPAM. The article itself does not contain any real-world content about the company's turnover, or capitalisation, so there is no real-world evidence that the company or its products are notable. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) does not require any real-world content about the company's turnover, or capitalisation, so there is no real-world evidence that the company or its products are notable. What the guideline requires is that it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. An award from British Columbia Technology Industry Association, mention in PC magazine, comparisons with other products by the Society for Technical Communication, ...these all contribute to meeting the guideline and seem to me to be reliable sources. Could you please clarify how you see that they and the other sources cited are not reliable sources or in what way the Company guideline is not met. --Matilda talk 21:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment It is strange for an article about a company that sells things not to say how much it sold. The company's website is coy about turnover and capitalisation as well. It seems to me what is missing from this article (other than promotional spin about its products) is real-world content, context, critisism or analysis of the company's development and market growth. It seems to me this article, like most WP:SPAM, puts the cart before the horse: there is an underlying presumption that the company has sold product, yet the article provides no evidence that it has sold so much as a sausage. What we have instead is an "Impact" section, which demonstrates certain organisations have used the product, but not actually bought it. Basically this article provides us with lots of promotional stuff, but is short on real-world information. A mention in a PC magazine is not evidence of notability.--Gavin Collins (talk) 07:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment There are references to users of the product. The financials are none of our business and not part of the criteria for notability. At this point I think we need to agree to disagree as to whether the sources meet the criteria in terms of reliability and sufficiency of mention - thanks for coming back to expand on your views.--Matilda talk 08:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I will limit my comments to the primary concept of the discussion (disclosure). Private companies do not divulge internal management figures (turnover, revenue and capitalisation) information to the general public, such information is limited to the private shareholders, the CFO and company directors. In WebTrain's case, it would need to release copies of all shareholder share certificates to a major reliable 3rd party for publication (for capitalisation). No private company does this. Not so with public companies. They must release this information, all trades and stock purchases are public information and revenue, expenses and the bottom line must be disclosed. It seems to me that the entire purpose of Wikipedia is to inform people about what they don't know about. That's why it is important to provide information about notable private organizations that have earned 3rd party attention and market space respect, especially when they do not have media influence. Gavin Collins's disclosure requirements would restrict all private organizations from appearing on Wikipedia. GaryECampbell (talk) 10:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Regardless of whether the company is private or public, it seems to me that there is a complete dearth of real-world information about this corporation, and without it, it is impossible to tell if they have sold anything, employ anyone or has any physical existence per se. Although the company is listed as being active on 17th of June, 2008, it has not filed its annual return as at 20th of June 2008[1]. This is the only real-world information know about its activities, other than it has a website, a registered office, and three directors. Together with the fact that none of the sources provide cited only promotional content about its products, this article fails WP:SPAM.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on the satisfactory introduction of WP:RS. Ford MF (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ford, Matilda, ref improvements. — Athaenara ✉ 19:15, 26 June 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/WebTrain&oldid=1138728176"