Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aardvark Insights, Inc.

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 speedy delete - author request. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Aardvark Insights, Inc., Aardvark Insights Project Tracker

Non-notable company, Googling for full name returns only the company's website, "Aardvark Insights" only 3 hits, zero indication of notability per company guidelines. Also nominating the page for the equally non-notable software produced by the firm, which also fails software guidelines by a mile. Google for the software's full name again brings up only the company's own website. Article on the company was deprodded without comment by articles' creator. Kimchi.sg 15:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - both articles, per nom. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 16:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both articles as per nom. Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a free webhosting/business directory/advertising space 208.131.51.27 18:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both, request from the author Andy.goryachev 16:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both, nonnotable yet. NawlinWiki 19:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both, neither yet meets the notability criteria for inclusion. —C.Fred (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete both on request of original editor. —C.Fred (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Rationale for Inclusion of Articles Hi, I appreciate your desire to keep Wikipedia free of spam. In writing these articles, I've tried to keep inline with Wikipedia guidelines by providing unbiased and objective information on the topics. We are not trying to push our warez; rather to explain the rationale for the brand new software tool (which is also free for personal use). There are links to the page from other articles in Wikipedia, although I noticed that the search engine does not yet reliably show them, perhaps it just needs some time to re-index new submissions. The same reasoning applies to the google search.

In any case, if the administrators feel that these articles violate Wikipedia guidelines, so be it. Our intent was to provide unbiased information about a new (and innovative) tool, and we tried to follow the rules.

Comment - Thanks for participating in this discussion and for making such a rational, informative response. The biggest single problem right now is that of "notability" (technically a guideline, not a policy) because the company and its products are indeed "brand new". Once they've been around for a while and have been mentioned by other sources, then it would be more reasonable to present the articles. One of our primary goals is to provide "encyclopedic content" which generally excludes "cutting edge" companies and products, at least until they are somewhat established and reported on. If , for example, a major newspaper were to do a story about your products, then we would certainly include an article at that point. Thanks again for participating :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 17:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

What to do with the Listings Then? - Well, I understand this logic, although I somewhat disagree with it. What is the purpose of providing listing of software products in wikipedia? My understanding of a communal process that allows everyone to edit an article should take care of fradulent or incorrect articles, at least on average. I tried to provide as much clear and concise information. Then again, if the public decides to kill the articles, so be it. ---Andy.goryachev 17:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply - There isn't really any problem with the articles themselves; they certainly aren't fraudulent or incorrect. Compared to some of the utter crap that turns up at AFD they're actually well written (In fact, I'm hoping you'll stay on as a contributor here even if these articles don't make it this time). The real issue is with the topic of the articles, their newness and lack of current notability, as well as the inabiblty to offer references (ie, to a newspaper article, trade journal, etc). I hope this helps. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 17:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

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.