Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patexia

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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. Black Kite (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patexia

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

Non-notable company. Fails WP:CORP. I couldn't find any evidence that this three-person company[1] has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Delete. Edcolins (talk) 10:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:41, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Edcolins. I realize I might have a WP:COI, but as you can see on this article's history page and my talk page, Grand'mere Eugene has been a great collaborator and took the lead on starting the draft and moving it to the article space so we could avoid any issues with WP:COI.

There were additional sources that weren't used that I think establishes breath of coverage for notability as outlined by WP:CORP. Some external links are: [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6] as well as the references already cited in the article.

I'd welcome any feedback you have if more proof of notability is needed. --EchoSpark (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EchoSpark, thanks for your comment. In my opinion, the additional references you provided do not establish that the company is notable per WP:CORP.

The first one (authored by the Director of "Content Marketing", Content Boost, TMCnet, which stands for "Technology Marketing Corporation") does not seem to be independent from the subject. From WP:CORP: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources."
Each of the IAM, WIPO and DC Dispatch reference contains a mere passing reference to Patexia.
Finally, the YTN TV video is not independent from the subject, as it appears to have been sponsored by Patexia itself (notably considering the "Patexia" tag in the upper right-hand corner of the video).

--Edcolins (talk) 19:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Edcolins. That's great feedback, thanks for clarifying. Let me rephrase to address your concerns.

The articles with Rooozafarin (published in 2014) [7], Techdirt [8], Luigi Benetton [9], and Intellogist [10] talk about Patexia in depth. The sources listed above, I agree, do make passing references, but they also establish a timeline for Patexia within 2014. Together, I believe both sets of sources help tie the detailed independent coverage of Patexia from 2011-2013 with more recent mentions from 2014 as required by WP:CORP: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability."

Finally, I would disagree that the YTN TV video is not independent from the subject. As the YTN TV article establishes, it's a 24-hour cable news network. There is obviously some form of collaboration between YTN and Patexia, but I think one can expect that given the video footage at Patexia's office and interviews with their employees. However, I don't think collaboration equates sponsorship. To help support my position, here's a listing of the documentary on YTN's website [11] and here is the same video on a YouTube channel where YTN Science has posted all their videos [12].

I think that combined, the sources point to Patexia's notability. You have an amazing resume of work on Wikipedia articles relating to patents and patent offices. I'm sure you've also discovered that anonymity is the rule of thumb in the industry. I don't think it means the standards need to be lowered for this article, but I think there's room to allow for understanding why a company of Patexia's purported impact doesn't seem to have a proportional amount of sources as a company in a more consumer-facing industry, something I think the WP:WikiProject Companies supports where mid-importance companies "may be national companies which mainly function in the background and aren't commonly known outside of financial circles."

I hope that addresses your concerns and I look forward to your feedback.--EchoSpark (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your additional comments. However, I am still not convinced that the company is notable, per WP:CORP. I should also add that comments such as "I'm sure you've also discovered that anonymity is the rule of thumb in the industry" are generally considered inappropriate on Wikipedia per WP:FOC. See also Don't push (the second paragraph especially). You may wish to ask for help here. --Edcolins (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that feedback and for being patient with me. I'll keep that in mind with my feedback on Wikipedia. I'll also give the WP:RESCUE a closer look to help improve my edits. Thanks again!--EchoSpark (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP for lack of significant coverage from independent reliable sources. The article has one Reliable Source reference (Bloomberg Businessweek), but it is not about Patexia except for a passing mention. I couldn't find any additional sources in a search. --MelanieN (talk) 03:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With a vested interest as the article's creator, I have little to add to EchoSpark's comments above. I tried to be vigilant in editing to maintain NPOV, but I also had some concerns for the subject's notability. I understand the evaluation that some of the references only mention Patexia in passing, or may not be reliable/independent enough. However, in reviewing the sources today I found that the Luigi Benetton article was originally published in a LexisNexis journal, The Lawyers Weekly - In-house Counsel. In my estimation, since that publication has an editorial board, it is a more reliable source than the website previously referenced. I made the revision to that citation in the Patexia article. Patexia's coverage in this article may not be enough to meet notability standards, but I thought that information worth your consideration. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 05:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:52, 23 September 2014 (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.