Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tacit Software

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. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tacit Software

Tacit Software (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

spammy article but noability asserted. Guy (Help!) 00:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Spammy? Ok - I pared that down (to almost nothing). Tell me about 'no ability asserted' - how do I fix that? --Cbyeh 00:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Note to user:Cbyeh, I think JzG means "no notability asserted" - see that link for what constitutes notability. --Dennisthe2 01:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Change vote to Keep, the article now asserts notability. Good show, Cbyeh. Transfer the links in Notes to the External Links section and you're good. --Dennisthe2 02:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete still an advert-like article made up of mostly external links.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 02:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep this is slightly more keepable now. Its new issues are now more along the lines of content disputes.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 18:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Thanks for your comments. I'd still like to fight to hold onto this entry. In its current form, it is a factual description of a venture-backed company in Silicon Valley. The company has 13 patents issued and 12 pending. From the Wikipedia notability requirements for companies: "The company or corporation (is notable if it) has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself." Please see the 'notes' section of this entry. Thanks for your consideration. --Cbyeh 02:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Even if the company is notable but the Wikipedia article does not sufficiently bring that out. Its not enough that the company be notable, the Wikipedia article has to establish it. You indicated that the company has 13 patents, but that is not in the article so it cannot be considered in determining whether to delete the article. If you want to improve the article (or at least have the article survive this Article for Deletion), look at other Wikipedia articles on companies and use those as a guide. (see, for example, Microsoft). Basically, Wikipedia articles on corporations usually include a lead section, an Infobox_Company template, a history section, and other sections that may go into particularly notable events listed in the history section. Articles usually contain more than that. Please review creating new articles. To give you a time frame, this Article for Deletion (AfD) may close after five days (e.g., after 00:19, 10 January 2007). -- Jreferee 03:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - The Wikipedia article does not sufficiently bring out notability. (The article also lacks footnotes.) I reviewed the 'notes' section of this entry and the articles provided in the link do not seem to provide enough history about the company to bring out notability. They more or less relate to marketing events. A bigger problem is that the company itself does not see its history important enough to include on its own web page (see About Tacit). Since the article should be deleted as it presently exists and the company itself does not see its own history as important enough to include on its web page, the appropriate course of action appears to be Delete. Note to user:Cbyeh - If there are significant changes to the article in the next few days, please post a note on my talk page so that I may review my reasoning and vote in light of the new information. Thanks. -- Jreferee 03:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Since the article still appears as an advertisement masquerading as an article, the article still is spammy as indicated in the nomination. It's no secret that Tacit Software's information gathering software is funded by the CIA and that Tacit Software gives away its information gathering software free to individuals. There are several third party articles that connect these two facts and conclude that the CIA can spy on individuals all over the world who use Tacit Software's freely issued, patented products. Despite my prodding, this information -- which would make the company noteworthy -- has not been added to the article. With a little help, the article could be rewritten from a neutral point of view per Wikipedia policy and thus I added the advert tag and have changed my vote to Keep. -- Jreferee 19:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Much as I do not like spam articles, there is enough hint of notability to keep this article. --- Skapur 04:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Enough independent sources presented to satisfy WP:N, WP:CORP Criteria 1. Article definitely needs a rewrite for WP:NPOV, but that's a separate issue. Whther this company deserved to have its press releases picked up and printed in major media outlets or not, it did, and hence notability is established. --Shirahadasha 08:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Reprints of press releases are trivial and not independent, so do not fulfill the criteria for multiple non-trivial coverage in relibale sources independent of the subject. Guy (Help!) 11:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Thanks again for your comments. Articles about a company that are not written by the company itself cannot be considered to be press releases. You may perceive some articles to be favorable to the company, but that is not because the company wrote them. Especially in the case of major news organizations, articles about companies are written from the unbiased, individual perspective of each reporter as formed by interviews with the company, its customers and independent analysts. Not all of these points of view are necessarily favorable to the company. As for WP:NPOV, I hope my latest edits are helpful. --Cbyeh 18:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I've seen much worse. Xanucia 13:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• To Cbyeh - Here is what the article reads so far: The company was founded. The company’s first product was released. Tacit released its second product. Tacit released its third product. Please note that every company has a founding date and just about all of them release some product. The article essentially is saying that there is nothing notable enough about Tacit to include in the Wikipedia article but if you are interested in learning more, here an a lot of external links. The Wikipedia:Notability requirement ensures that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic. The source material linked in the article does not provide enough source material to write a Wikipedia:Verifiability, encyclopedic article about the topic. The article still violates the policy Wikipedia:Notability (note - WP:CORP is only guideline and AfD is based on policies. You could avoid the issue of whether the external links provide enough source material by actually including the source material in the body of the article.) Also, except for the lead section, each sentence should have a footnote to permit other editors to verify the statements in the article. I posted a footnote in the article as an example (the lead section should be a summary of the rest of the article, which it is not). The information in the article is not verifiable. The article violates Wikipedia:Verifiability. I'm glad to see you add more to the article, but I haven't changed my opinion and still think the article should be deleted. You haven't made many posts on Wikipedia. What is your interest in creating an article on Tacit Software? -- Jreferee 19:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Might need cleanup, but there are some good mentions in large publications that don't appear to be press releases (the Business 2.0 and PC Magazine pieces, for example). Looks to meet the requirements, from that. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - appears well sourced. Edit it accordingly if you think the tone is spammy. Tarinth 20:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• On the fence - It doesn't state the notabillity/the notability isn't obvious, true; I don't know what the article looked like when it was nominated, but it certainly has been improved from its lousy stubbiness when it was first created. I could swing either way on this, but past the notability issue, all it requires is some cleanup. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 22:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep it needs a cleanup, but it is notable now. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 02:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• To Jreferee - thanks for your help and for your comments. I have modified the content of the page significantly so that it better states (and supports) the notability requirements (and hopefully the neutrality requirements) the community has cited in this dialog. Let me address your more personal questions. This is indeed my first posting in Wikipedia. Tacit Software is a company that has recently come under much more public scrutiny because of a new product it just launched. My goal for posting in Wikipedia is to provide a fact-based description of the company and its technologies so users can learn more in a neutral environment. If the article violates Wikipedia notability and neutrality rules, I think that's due to the fact that I'm a Wikipedia novice and not that the company itself is not notable. As always, your comments are welcome. I am particularly interested in community feedback on cleanup - what specifically should be worked on? --Cbyeh 02:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Cbyeh - The cleaned up article looks even more like an advertisement for the company's products, which makes it even a stronger deletion candidate (see WP:AFDP#Companies). Didn't anything notable happen to the company or was caused by the company between 1997 and 2007? Review this google search for notable items to include in the article. Did the company receive any legitimate awards for notable merit? Did Tacit best other companies to win any awards? A company having products or patents is not notable. Did the ActiveNet or illumio products make a notable difference in the companies that purchased the product? Was there some notable event in the development of these products? Were any of the Tacit patents subject to a notable legal fight? Did Tacit buy any of the patents for a huge amount of money? As for further clean up, you should review the cited external links for facts to include in the article and add the link as a footnote and remove it from the external links. - Jreferee 06:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Jreferee - thanks again for your comments. Thanks for pushing me to make this article better. I have made additional changes to the article per your thoughts. --Cbyeh 03:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is more of a fact based environment rather than a neutral environment. You might want to include in the article information about the public scrutiny of Tacit Software that you mention above. I'm sure it will eventually be added and, if you don't do it yourself, you might not like the results. Also, I think it's great that you would like to contribute to Wikipedia beyond this one article. If you are interested in developing articles on other CIA backed companies, there is list at CIA investments. -- Jreferee 19:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

keep Nice to see real imrovement as a result of the discussion. DGG 04:50, 10 January 2007 (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.