Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xiotech

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xiotech

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

The article has been thrice speedily deleted, first in 2006. It appears to have only one third-party source, which only asserts that the company has close ties to Seagate. However, corporations have no inhertied notability on Wikipedia. --hydrox (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for sysop action. It would be nice if an administrator could restore the wiki-markup version of the article text from one of the speedily deleted versions for discussion, as the user-restored version is currently in raw HTML. --hydrox (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Thanks, article is now in wiki-markup. --hydrox (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)*Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. -- hydrox (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- hydrox (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator: fails WP:CORP (has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.) --hydrox (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This Wiki article is within the guidelines and appropriate to the private company/ corporate related to the date storage community on Wikipedia.

Keep Per ThisPolicy, which states in these exact words - an organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources - that an article like this is perfectly acceptable. PolicyFavorsKeeping.

Examples:

Xiotech has posted relevant and supporting company and historical notes that are not available anywhere else online. Additionally, the notes and properly referenced content is intended to be informative and educational in nature. Incoming/ outgoing links aid searches and my become broken should this article be removed.

Finally the Xiotech article is a work in progress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Daw (talk • contribs) 17:16, February 7, 2011

Delete ...and you are an SPA. EEng (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll break down your sources one by one:

[1]: A blog/wiki type source. Such Internet publications are not generally considered reliable primary sources for an article because they have little editorial oversight, resulting to a high risk of eg. vanity press (paid publishing). However, had the same article appeared on the New York Times, the company would be famous and notable without a question. Wikibon is a wiki.
[2]: A brief reiteration of a company press release in an industry publication. Seems to lack any significant editorial input. Press releases are self-published sources.
[3]: Comes closest to being an indepent secondary source with editorial input. However, Infostor is not a general publication, but another "industry publication".

To sum up, none of these references (any of them alone, nor all of them combined) constiture significant coverage in third party sources, thus failing the very first sentence of WP:CORP. --hydrox (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per ThisPolicy, Additional 3rd party sources: eWeek & Analysts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Daw (talk • contribs) 17:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary:

The latter is a blog hosted at eWeek. It is mostly an opinion writing (eg. last sentence: "Both of these Minnesota companies, with Soran at Compellent and equally first-class CEO Casey Powell at Xiotech, have excellent leadership, IMO.") Needless to say, no one expects opinion writings to be reliable sources.
The former is a search result of multiple articles, and some of them could constitute significant coverage in the above-mentioned eWeek publication (eg. [4]), but I would need you to write a clean article in Wiki markup to assess whether they support the facts you want to bring forth in the Wikipedia article.

Currently, the article is written in a promotional sense but still lacking reference for the key sentence of the lead-in that would assess its significance "Xiotech Corporation ... is a privately held data storage company, one of the largest in the world" (emphasis added). --hydrox (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken, or have misspoken. Comments of opinion are everywhere on Wikipedia. That is one of the things the Blockquote, bquote, cquote etc templates are for. It is preferred that they be opinions from experts in the field. The source from which they are derived is checked for reliability in its documentation. Blogs are counterindicated, but blogs of experts in the field are just fine. Anarchangel (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, but an opinion writing can not be the only source for an article, unless it is a very remarkable opinion writing. Here it also appears as though the opinion writer might have a COI. --hydrox (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per hydrox. WuhWuzDat 18:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable small firm with no substantive press coverage. (The unsourced "one of the largest" seems to have been removed.) --Orange Mike | Talk 00:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I'm new to editing Wiki articles and pages within the greater Wikipedia encyclopedia I appreciate the thoughts, notes, and advice from the user commpay. The intent is to add (unbiased/ NPOV) significant and knowledgeable Xiotech contributions, such as emerging storage technologies that tie-into data storage subject-matter throughout other articles and sections. Therefore entries specifically in debate in the Xiotech (section) are not intended to be SPA; and as an open-source user community I'm willing to collaborate with you in making the necessary edits to add value to the encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Daw (talk • contribs) 02:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am sure your contributions on this field of technology are welcomed by the Wikipedia community. But this discussion is not about whether the article is written from the NPOV (Neutral Point of View). Espcially after your several reiterations, the article is now written in a way that meets Wikipedia's requirements of encyclopedic and neutral tone, but this is not the central concern raised in the deletion discussion. Apart from the NPOV policy, Wikipedia also has a notbility policy, that mandates which headwords are considered article-worthy. For corporations, this is outlined in the WP:CORP policy. It might seem frustrating, but I still think this article does not provide enough references to unaffiliated 3rd party resources to establish significant coverage. --hydrox (talk) 06:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2011 (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.