Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 April 20

20 April 2010

Informatica Corporation deletion endorsed. but there is clearly no objection to a more neutral article being written from scratch – Decision endorsed – Spartaz Humbug! 14:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Informatica (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Informatica Corporation (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Note: The article in question, originally at Informatica has been speedily deleted by User:JzG as G11: [1]. Pcap ping 04:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC) Walery (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC) TO: Wikipedia administrators FROM: Debbie O’Brien, VP Corporate Communications, Informatica Corporation Informatica Wikipedia Page – request for deletion review The Wikipedia page about Informatica Corporation was recently deleted due to the inclusion of materials deemed to be promotional. We regret that these materials were posted to the Informatica page and request that you review the following, which we would like to propose as the text for a new Wikipedia page about Informatica. Moving forward, we will remain alert to any changes made to the content and language of the page, and will be active in reaching out to the appropriate administrators to ensure that all standards are met for Informatica information on Wikipedia. Proposed text: Informatica Corporation is a provider of data integration and data quality software and services for a wide range of businesses, industries and government organizations, including financial services, health care, public sector, telecommunications and insurance. The company’s products support various enterprise-wide data integration and data quality solutions including data warehousing, data migration, data consolidation, data synchronization, data governance, master data management, cross-enterprise data integration, complex event processing and cloud data integration. Informatica comprises numerous business units which include: Enterprise Data Integration, Data Quality, Cloud Data Integration, Application Information Lifecycle Management (ILM), Complex Event Processing (CEP), Master Data Management (MDM), Ultra Messaging and B2B. History: Informatica (NASDAQ: INFA) was founded in 1993 in Silicon Valley by Indian Entrepreneurs Gaurav Dhillon and Dianz Nesamoney . It was based on the idea that data warehouses should not be "handcoded", but instead can be built more efficiently with graphical tools. Software industry veteran Sohaib Abbasi became chief executive of Informatica in July, 2004 at a time when the data integration software company was struggling financially and with its identity. Abbasi took the helm and refocused the company on a narrower set of products, while evangelizing the broader use of data integration across the enterprise. Under his leadership, Informatica’s revenues have grown from $219 million in fiscal 2004 to over $500 million in fiscal 2009. Acquisitions: Influence Software, an analytics applications company in 1999. Zimba Software, a mobile business intelligence company in 2000. Striva, maker of standards-based mainframe connectivity software in 2003. Similarity Systems, maker of data quality products in 2006. Itemfield, maker of data mapping and transformation technology in 2007. Identity Systems, an identity resolution technology company in 2008. Applimation, an application Information Lifecycle Management (ILM) company in 2009. Address Doctor, a pioneer and leader in global address validation technology in 2009. Agent Logic, maker of Complex Event Processing software in 2009. Siperian, maker of Master Data Management software in Jan 2010. 29West, Ultra-Low Latency Messaging company in March 2010. Outbound Links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Integration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_quality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_Data_Management http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metadata http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_event_processing http://quotes.nasdaq.com/asp/SummaryQuote.asp?symbol=INFA&selected=INFA http://www.informatica.com/news_events/press_releases/Pages/01282010_q4_earnings.aspx Inbound Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sohaib_Abbasi 'Comment It looks like the article just mentioned, Sohaib Abbasi, needs considerable attention. It seems to have been here is about its present state for several years, which is pretty disgraceful. A dozen small technical format changes were made, but that was attention paid to the wrong level of problem. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Proposed text doesn't read like an encyclopaedia article to me. (An encyclopaedia article would begin, "Informatica is a medium-sized Californian company founded in 1993" and then immediately go on to say what's actually notable about it, which I'm at a loss to do. And we can't use text supplied by the organisation, it's a clear conflict of interest.) What we need is information published in third party reliable sources that are independent of the article's subject that we can use to construct a proper article, and I'm not sure that such information exists. I also suspect that the reason Informatica wants a Wikipedia article is essentially to generate sales enquiries; a Wikipedia article enhances its image. On balance I think that if Informatica is noteworthy, some independent editor will write an article about it.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Comment - Informatica is clearly a notable company, given that it has a market capitalisation of $2.4 billion. Some independent editor probably won't write an article about it though, because it is not an anime character. - hahnchen 13:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC) The article was self-promotion and virtually all non-trivial edits were by single-purpose accounts. The requester also has a conflict of interest. Informatica Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was a redirect, Informatica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is currently a disambiguation page (as it should be). I suggest we point the company to WP:AFC and stop wasting our time with this. Guy (Help!) 16:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC) And you have an (unacknowledged) conflict of interest because you've speedily deleted this article as G11. Pcap ping 05:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC) Can you explain how taking administrative actions regarding the article creates a conflict of interest? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 08:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC) Closing admins usually self-identify as such in DRVs. Not in this case. Given the non-obvious way in which this was deleted (to me anyway), I thought I'd mention who did it. Pcap ping 10:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC) Maybe they do (though it doesn't seem to be mandated, and It certainly isn't 100%) but that's quite different from a conflict of interest. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 11:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC) I did not link to any guidelines. I've used the expression in the plain English sense. Most people would vote for themselves in an election the partake in, or to reaffirm their prior choices. I won't link to our mainspace article on the topic because it's mostly unsourced. Based on other recent interaction with him, JzG seems to see G11's a lot these day. Perhaps it's just cognitive bias. Pcap ping 11:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC) Overturn - I've taken a look at the article, which is mirrored here. Whereas it does read like a press release, it would be a lot more efficient to just restore and then clean up and cull rather than the rigmarole of starting over; it'd also preserve the contribution history as required by our licensing. This is a clearly notable company, it should have an article. - hahnchen 01:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Our licensing requires attribution for the material, a new article not using the material in the original doesn't have any requirement to preserve contribution history. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 10:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC) I know. I'm suggesting it'd be more efficient to take what was previously there, and cut it down. As opposed to starting over. - hahnchen 10:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC) OK, that's now how I read your original wording - "It'd also..." sounds like it's an additional benefit, rather than just being a requirement of your proposed course of action. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 08:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC) Overturn: delete the dab and restore the original article that was under Informatica before April 7. The only plausible dabbing is from Acta Informatica (an article I created), and that can be done by a hatnote if at all. Someone added two ridiculously obscure Easter European CS journals to the dab, but I've nuked those. Try creating articles for them first—they are far more likely to qualify for a CSD than this corporation ever was. Never mind a russian word added to the dab: what happened to WP:NOTDICT? None of the two dozen incoming links [2] are about any of this "disambiguation" stuff. Informatica is indeed a notable corporation. The deleted article doesn't read like over the top spam to me. The company even meets the much stricter German Wikipedia standards for corporations: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informatica. I'm sure less drastic measures that deleting the entire article can be found. Independent sources are easily found. There's a 150 page chapter about their products in this book for instance. More book coverage [3]. The Sohaib Abbasi bio (he's the company's CEO) has more Forbes coverage in the last section, etc. A narrow search for "informatica 9", the latest version of their main product, returns 191 gnews hits. (Article history: The article was originally at Informatica, and was speedily deleted by User:JzG as G11 [4], and a new article dab was written over [5]. Rather ridiculous. The Informatica Corporation was a redirect deleted by a bot [6].) Pcap ping 04:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC) Overturn-The article was originally deleted under G11 which states: Unambiguous advertising or promotion Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion. — G11-Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion While the deleted article wasn't of high quality, it should not have been speedied. Informatica has a quarterly revenue of $135m [7]. It is indeed a notable company that should have an article. (A google news search shows that there are a sufficient number of articles on the company).Smallman12q (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC) Endorse deletions of obvious COI PR puffery like this. The requester, Walery, has precisely one contribution to Wikipedia and the request is headed "VP Corporate Communications, Informatica Corporation" - so, blatant promotion hits it smack on the head. If anyone provably not connected with the company wants to create a real article some time then let them, but this was not such an article. Does that sound like I hate spammers abusing Wikipedia to promote their own commercial gain? If so, I said it right. Guy (Help!) 20:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC) I'm unsurprised you're endorsing your own deletion. Wikipedia has a massive hole when it comes to our corporate coverage, especially if they're business2business, and offer nothing visible to the general public. The PR "puffery" that you describe is not unique, take a look at Convergys and Sykes Enterprises, you'd be hard pressed to find a corporate article a paragon of quality. But this hole isn't going to be filled by speedying anything that smacks of an ill defined puffery. Wikipedia should be working with corporations, and encourage them to identify themselves and write articles following Wikipedia guidelines. That User:Walery has identified themselves is a positive. Sure, there are COI issues, but it's not like any political/middle east/climate change article doesn't have them. Maybe we should let third parties write corporate articles for payment following Wikipedia guidelines, but the last time that sensible idea was tried out, we dicked on the user involved, and administrators complained over "subtle biases" that are so subtle that we're not aware of, yet are influenced by anyway. We should have engaged with the corporation, and asked them to use a single role account, but apparently - that's not allowed either. This could have been dealt with a lot easier by stubbing, or by sending it over to WP:COI/N. This should be restored so that we can do that. I mean, Wikipedia's rate of growth is decreasing across the board, and yet we still have redlinks on NASDAQ-100?! Business as usual, has not been good enough. - hahnchen 23:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC) Don't worry, we have an article on PRQ. It's all that matters. Pcap ping 00:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC) I find it absurd that a sysop could honestly believe that a company which has a quarterly revenue of US$134,000,000 could possibly be here on Wikipedia for commercial gain. The company is notable enough to have its own article, and the fact that the VP of Corporate Communications has come here goes to show that they'd like to work with us in writing an article. Whatever happened to collaboration?Smallman12q (talk) 10:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Did they donate any of that money to Wikimedia? I suspect not, otherwise some magic OTRS/office would have happened by now. Clue bat, Mr. VP if you're reading this! Endorse deletion: I believe the correct way to proceed is to create a minimal stub and the company to post ideas on the talk page. What we are particularly looking for is independent third party coverage, which should be easy to achieve for such a notable company. I can offer to work on a new article from the ground up. I think the company should also commit not to edit the article directly, and to post on the article talk page and contact an administrator if there are temporary inaccuracies which are damaging to the company. Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Give that both products of your company, Clesh and FORscene, have been mainly edited by a single purpose account, [8], and they look how they look, I conclude that's a pretty funny offer. Pcap ping 18:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Yes - you clearly have a good sense of humour. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Endorse deletion - The deleted article was puffery, sourced only to Informatica and some Informatica press releases posted on third-party websites. If this is notable, which it may be, a new article can be developed from scratch. --Orlady (talk) 17:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Siberian Wikipedia – Despite the fact that I commented I think it is fair for me to snow this in a direction that is different to the way I commented. In short, Deletion Endorsed as the closing admin made the right close based on the information provided, but since the outcome was clearly affected by the socking the AFD is declared void and the article relisted. – Spartaz Humbug! 15:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Siberian Wikipedia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) False consensus/sock puppets voting This article was deleted unduely. Altenmann, a now banned sock puppet master managed to get that article deleted (Siberian Wikipedia), in the AfD he initiated as Altenmann, he also voted delete as Xuz, Timurite and Dzied Bulbash. In essence, his 3 (!) sock puppet votes should be discarded and the article undeleted as the deletion resulted from false consensus , created by this user. Needless to say, his main account, Altenmann, closed the debate as delete. In case of Derzhava, he made a similar trick, proposing deletion as User:Timurite and then deleting it as Altenmann.--Miacek and his crime-fighting dog | woof! 15:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC) AFD is a discussion and the consensus is measured against policy not headcount. The closing admin found the argument that the information was unverifiable and lacked sufficient reliable sources to be the most policy based argument and that this supported delete. The socking is obviously bad, but the deletion argument was supported by other non-socking editors and the issues with the sources were not sufficiently rebutted to win the day. I personally see no point in recreating this, re-listing it and then deleting it since the lack of sources is absolutely fatal to the article. I suggest we incubate this and you should work on the sources to see if you can overcome that hurdle before considering a restoration or relisting here / AFD. Essentially, even with the disgraceful socking, no sources = no article. Spartaz Humbug! 15:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Note that the closing admin wasn't Mikkalai... Spartaz Humbug! 15:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC) I'm afraid you didn't dig deep enough into the issue. There were sources, too, as some users pointed out, but then again, those sources were not accepted by some users, so the issue was much more complicated. For example a number of users argued that Wikipedias in different languages often have few sources about them, yet outright deletion of our articles on different Wikipedias is unwarranted. A number of comparisons with other wikis like Lithuanian Wikipedia were drawn, but it fell on deaf ears. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog | woof! 16:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)--Miacek and his crime-fighting dog | woof! 16:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Overturn and send back to afd- the afd was irredeemably tainted by socking. A new afd discussion should be allowed to take place where the article can be judged on its merits. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC) I should also mention that, much like the posters after me have stated, that though I think this article does need relisting, i do not think the closer made a bad close with the information they had at the time. Merely that the facts that turned up after the close, over which the closer had no control, warrant the article being given a second consideration. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Overturn and relist. Regardless of the merits of keeping the article this clearly needs to be relisted as it's important that we are seen to do the right thing. Even if the closer feels that they would have closed the same regardless of the socks we do not know what influences they had on other people's actions. It seems at least somewhat likely that a fuller discussion may have taken place of whether the sources were sufficient if it wasn't for the socks and this may have influenced a closer's decision. It is also possible that the socks made editors think a deletion close was likely and so discouraged them looking for further sources. Hence I see no choice but to relist. Dpmuk (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Overturn. As much as I agree with the close - WP:V is a core policy - the socking was just too prevalent to allow it to stand. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Overturn and relist --perhaps by SNOW. DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Overturn and relist but there's no indication that Sandstein, the actual closing admin, has had a chance to comment here yet. I suspect he would not have opposed such a relisting, given the socking, but I can't speak for him. Jclemens (talk) 03:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Sandstein made the correct information given the information available to him, but of course subsequent events have overtaken that. Therefore, endorse but relist. Stifle (talk) 08:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Relist, exactly per Stifle. Please would whoever closes this debate consider saying in the closing statement that no blame attaches to Sandstein, who was understandably duped by bad faith users.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Kharsag – Out of scope for DRV. Try RFC – Spartaz Humbug! 13:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Kharsag (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This article was unduely merged and deleted without discussion based on the opinions of several editors that it is the same word as the kharsag epics, a group of Sumerian texts given that name by a fringe scholar. Kharsag is clearly a completely different word from the fringe naming of a group of texts. It is a singular location, a sacred mountain in NE mythology that is always described in similar terms to the Mount Olympus in Greek Mythology - the birthplace and home of the original Sumerian pantheon including Anu, Enlil, Enki and Ninkharsag. I have been working to seperate this from the fringe theories surrounding it by providing a host of notable sources describing this word or part of a phrase referring to the same location. I therefore suggest it requires it's own page, concentrating on the scholarly work of the following eminent scholars. I have tried discussig this with the editors concerned who seem to consistently support the deletion of the work of the following notable, verifiable, non-fringe sources of information about a location fundamental to human origins: Kharsag; also Khar-sag, Imkharsag, E-kharsag, E-kharsag-gal-kurkurra, E-kharsag-kurkurra, Kharsag-kzurcktra, E-kharsag-kalama, Hur-Sag, Gar-Sag or Gar-Sag-da is a Sumerian word or part of a Sumerian phrase noted as the mountain home of the earliest mythological hero-gods including Anu, Enlil, Enki and Ninhursag. It was later used to describe temples or houses dedicated to this location. It is suggested to represent the location of a Sumerian creation story. Arthur Bernard Cook amongst many others translated one of these gods "Nin-khar-sag, 'Lady of the High Mountain.'" The Nippur Cylinder, a reverse cut cuneiform cylinder, described by George Aaron Barton as "The oldest religious text from Babylonia" mentions Kharsag in the first line of the second verse - "The holy Tigris, the holy Euphrates, the holy sceptre of Enlil establish Kharsag".. The 'Liturgy to Nintud' (Barton's translation) says "E-kharsag-gal is devoted to ceremonies" and "The luluppi-tree of the wife of the god, the pi-pi plants of ... In Kharsag the garden of the gods were green" showing similarities to other creation myths. The 'Hymn to Ibi Sin' (Barton's translation) says "Kharsag for the cold constructed a furnace". Barton's 'New Creation Myth' was re-translated as the first "Kharsag Epic" by fringe author Christian O'Brien, who claimed it began "At Kharsag, where Heaven and Earth met, the Heavenly Assembly, the Great Sons of Anu, descended - the many Wise Ones". Morris Jastrow, Jr. mentions it in context "Again, it is Sargon who in consistent accord with his fondness for displaying his archaeological tastes, introduces Bel, the 'great mountain,' 'the lord of countries,' who dwells in E-khar-sag-kurkura, i.e., the sacred mountain on which the gods are born". Charles Boutiflower mentions "Sargon II king of Assyria, who was of an antiquarian turn, speaks of " The Great Mountain, Enlil, the lord of the lands, dwelling in E-kharsag-gal-kurkurra". Gerald Massey translates "Kharsag-Kalama" as the “mount of the nations.” Hermann Volrath Hilprecht translated the location as "O great mountain of Bel, Imkharsag". William F. Warren refers to it as "the vast mountain, Kharsag-kurkura" when disucssing Sumerian cosmology. Grey Hubert Skipwith refers to this location as "the great mythological 'mountain of the world,' 'Kharsag-kzurcktra'" Robert William Rogers mentions it's use in Assyrian times as "the home of the great god Asshur, whose temple E-kharsag-kurkurra was erected by the earliest rulers of whom we know anything". Stephen Herbert Langdon translates "gar-sag-da" as "nether-world mountain" in context of a temple dedicated to the unsettled locations of Kêš in Erech. Samuel Noah Kramer mentions Hur-sag and very specifically uses it in the context of a speech by Ninurta, son of Enlil to Ninhursag representing a singular location, a sacred mountain and home of the first recorded Gods. "Therefore, of the hill which I, the hero, have heaped up. Let it's name be Hursag (mountain), and thou be it's queen". Paul Bedson (talk) 11:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Comment The problem is that this is all original research. Describing this at WP:FTHN he uses phrases such as 'clearly understand', 'I would argue', 'firmly believe', etc. and has said "It might help to explain that the actual ancient cuneiform these words are translated from is more like picture language than ours. The picture-sign translated as "khar" or "gar" (or for Kramer "hur") in many of these books is that of a garden or enclosure and that of "sag" is a picture sign of a head. Hence mountain in basic translations, but undeniably used in the context of the home or birthplace of the first Gods (Enlil, NinKharsag, etc.) by all these authors and professors as a singular location." Dougweller (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Comment I do not understand how all these noteable scholars research is anything original. It's all been well noted since at least 1918 and to the bulk of scholarly understanding a lot longer ago than that! I trust my explanations of the subject will provide editors assistance in making informed decisions. Apologies if my tone is somewhat argumentative, but that's not OR. Paul Bedson (talk) 12:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Reply The conclusion you reach from these scholars is what is original research, or rather perhaps synthesis, see WP:SYN. None of them say that any particular word is the same as 'Kharsag' or that all the locations are the same. I'm not even sure if they all come from the same period, context, etc. Dougweller (talk) 12:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Note This article was never taken to AfD. The only relevant AfD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kharsag Epics, which was closed as merge. Kharsag was then created which was turned into a redirect on the grounds it was basically the same subject. I agree with that, but another editor has removed the redirect so it may be necessary to take it to AfD. Dougweller (talk) 12:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Reply I have to disagree and trust it is immediately obvious from all the cites that this Sumerian word refers to a single mythological location. That's great news about a fair deletion discussion though. I'll copy over the format above and even if we disagree over OR and SNTH, I feel sure you'll agree that the form of the article above is far more suitable than where we started on this. Regards Paul Bedson (talk) 12:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Endorse merger... if we are reviewing the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kharsag Epics, the merge decision seems an appropriate closure. The Kharsag article seems to have been created in an obvious attempt to circumvent that decision and, as such, I endorse extending the previous AfD decision to this article... it should also be merged and the title redirected. Blueboar (talk) 12:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Speedy close as out of scope of DRV. Deletion review only reviews deletions and the outcome of deletion discussions. Stifle (talk) 13:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.