Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/July Systems

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. MBisanz ^talk 03:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July Systems

Has been tagged since October but still no external references or links to denote notability. The whole article is really just one big promotion piece. HighKing (talk) 13:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORP and is mostly an advertising, promotional article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A very quick search yielded two articles on the company in The Hindu and one in The Times of India, both clearly newspapers of record. Definitely needs tidied up, but doesn't fail WP:CORP in my opinion. Gr1st (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually, none of the articles you've pointed out show that the company is notable. The articles you've found are actually all promotional pieces initiated by the company itself. Take a closer look at those articles .. you'll probably agree that it fails WP:CORP I'm afraid... --HighKing (talk) 12:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In what way are they "initiated by the company"? Gr1st (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the first two are obviously press releases, written and released by the company to announce a launch (company, product). Both press releases are written as promotional - pretty standard stuff. The last one is a press release announcing that they'd received funding - again not anything notable and initiated by the company themselves. --HighKing (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of these are press releases. A press release is a self-published source. The above are legitimate stories written by the staff of high-quality newspapers. They are reliable sources and there is nothing to suggest that they are not 100% independent of the subject. I'm still waiting to see a scrap of evidence that these were "initiated by the company". Gr1st (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well ... no. It's pretty normal practice for a company to issue a press release that is then "published" by mainstream press. Only one of the articles you've shown have an "author" (the 2nd one), but if you can still see that it's a thinly disguised "press release". Check out archive.org and look at the the July Systems website for the dates in question and you can see that they were published by the company (no accreditation to newspapers). --HighKing (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the other two articles are bylined "our bureau" and "Times News Network" - i.e. not published by the company. I've looked at the website via archive.org and cannot see an article identical to any of these. It doesn't matter one jot per WP notability guidelines if a reliable source publishes its own article based on a press release - that is still independent coverage. I have still not seen any evidence that the editorial independence of these newspapers has been compromised. Gr1st (talk) 07:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Hindu and The Times of India are both "third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Many newspaper articles are based on or prompted by press releases, but these have still undergone an independent editorial process, which is what is required for their use of sources for Wikipedia. The whole point of our notability guidelines is that we don't substitute our own subjective judgement of notability for that of the editors of two of the world's largest circulation English language broadsheet newspapers, who have decided that this company is notable enough for them to publish articles about it. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Gr1st (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has coverage in this book published by Cambridge University Press and in this article in The Wall Street Journal. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good find, but it still doesn't make the company notable. The book in question is discussing how companies switch business plans, etc, and uses July as an example. Still doesn't make it notable though... C'mon guys, be objective! The company has been around for a while, true, but what is it notable for exactly? --HighKing (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable for being the subject of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the subject. And please don't accuse people of not being objective - I've no agenda here. Gr1st (talk) 07:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep 230 google news results
Nominator wrote: "Has been tagged since October but still no external references or links to denote notability." Wikipedia:Notability Guideline "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." Policy is crystal clear articles for deletion is NOT the forum to clean up articles.

Policy: Deletion should be a last resort
WP:PRESERVE Policy "Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information." Wikipedia:Notability Guideline "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." Wikipedia:Deletion Policy Decorum and politeness. Wikipedia urges any contributor to read the Wikipedia:Deletion policy before deleting or nominating an article for deletion. "When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." WP:INTROTODELETE "Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved." Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state "In most cases deletion of an article should be a last resort"

Why didn't the nominator make a good faith attempt to clean up the article first? Why didn't the nominator look for sources? It took me ten seconds to find 230 google news articles.
"Wikipedia was like a giant community leaf-raking project in which everyone was ...a groundsman...And then self-promoted leaf-pile guards appeared....who would look ...at your...handful and shake their heads, saying that your leaves were too crumpled or too slimy or too common, throwing them to the side." travb (talk) 10:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you take it a further step and read the "news", like I did, you would most probably share my conclusion that these "news" articles are promotional Press Releases announcing partnerships and product launches. I looked for sources, I've read the material. Seeing as you're so fond of policy, take a look at WP:AGF, and next time try *reading* the sources. The names of the sources such as "Business Wire", "BusinessLine", "PR Newswire" etc might have given you a hint. Volume of "noise" does not equate to notability. --HighKing (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's clear that many editors here believe that this company is notable. I nominated the article for deletion based on my interpretation of self-published sources - and therefore any company generated press releases that are "picked up" by the newswire are not regarded as meeting notability guidelines. I'm happy to be corrected on that if I'm mistaken. There are a number of experienced editors here that believe the company is notable, and that's good enough for me. --HighKing (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. HighKing is right to complain about bootstrapped notability from press releases, but there's enough there from other sources [1] that, combined with $30M in venture capital funding, makes it notable. Sounds like Ashok Narasimhan might merit an article, too. THF (talk) 19:13, 18 January 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.