Expressor – This is getting a little disruptive and we certainly are not going to give the nominator relief here. Deletion endorsed and if the nominator hasn't read WP:COI already then they should – Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Expressor (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) KEEP/ADD ARTICLE: ShawnRog This debate seems to happen way too often around the lsiting of software and technology companies. I am a member of the press and cover the Business Intelligence and data warehousing space. Expressor is a well known solution provider in this industry and warrants a balanced and detailed listing in Wikipedia. Expressor's notoriety is supported by substantial trade press coverage, analyst coverage and recognition. It would be a noticeable omission for editors here at Wikipedia to not include companies such as Expressor in the database. —Preceding undated comment added 19:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC). I am requesting a review of the deletion of the Expressor article and that this article be temporarily restored for all to examine during this review. I have attempted to engage the editors who initiated and supported the Expressor AfD nomination, but none have responded. I have also attempted to communicate with the administrator who deleted the Expressor page – User:Secret -- before requesting this deletion review, but Secret also never responded. I am requesting undeletion of the Expressor page because I believe it was nominated for deletion based on a misinterpretation of the notability guidelines, supported by conflicting interpretations of what constitutes notability for software companies and mis-statements of fact. As I noted in a comment posted in the AfD discussion for expressor competitor Talend: “Like Talend, expressor is a new entrant with substantial VC backing in the established market for data integration and ETL products -- a fact both companies can and have proven with numerous, industry-specific references. An editor here noted that Talend has only received coverage in IT-related publications -- but those are exactly the kind of objective, secondary sources of information that not only confer notability within this IT market segment, but they are also the kind of secondary research buyers seek when evaluating a solution. (And since it competes in the same market, it is not surprising that expressor cited many of the same sources, such as Gartner, in its entry.) By deleting entries for companies such as Talend and expressor (not to mention other similar entries for Pentaho, Apatar and Jitterbit) for non-notability, you are ensuring that Wikipedia readers can only find information here on the largest vendors and products, and therefore get a skewed and inaccurate picture of objective reality.” Sccasey (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn/incubate ~~userfy~~ -- the AfD discussion produced a weak result at best, and a search here suggests it is very likely that an article can be justified. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] There is already a Copy located here User:Sccasey/expressor_software_entry_draft.--Hu12 (talk) 08:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] That's a pretty crappy draft, and if that's where we're headed then I agree that there is no need for an article here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] User:Sccasey has a probable conflict of interest regarding this topic. However, the topic itself appears to meet the general notability criterion ([1][2]) and the version of the article produced by Sccasey seemed to establish the notability of the topic. So, incubate (in this case, I think incubating is a better option than userfying because it will allow other editors to participate in the improvement) until a policy-compliant version of the article is produced. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 19:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Deleted. User:Sccasey is a Consultant for expressor software. See Spam Case. Nothing more than a Advertisement masquerading as an article for non-notable software(WP:CORP). References found are to splogs, press releases, self-submitted reviews and to partners that do not confer notability and do not count as reliable sources. Nothing in this suggests that this site or service has any sort of historical or technical significance of the kind needed to support an encyclopedia article.--Hu12 (talk) 08:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] Temporarily restore article deleted on 12/10 by Secret. The article referenced by Hu12 above was an early draft that was subsequently edited based on feedback from other editors. This discussion should be based on the most recent article version that was deleted on 12/10 by Secret -- which is why I made that request when initiating this review. Sccasey (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)— Sccasey (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC).[reply] I'd be very careful, you attempted to the same thing at Afd under the anon IP 24.147.28.111 (talk · contribs)^[3]. You are the requestor of this DRV, and have a Clear conflict of interest and are a paid consultant editing on behalf of your client, expressor software. Canvassing other DRV's for Expressor, "keep Talend and expressor" Canvassing participants of another AFD unrelated to Expressor, where you liked the outcome Twice "'Admin'" shopping for undeletion after the AFD Continued spamming despite warnings Under IP 24.2.206.247 (talk · contribs)[4][5] Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising". Equally Wikipedia is not a place to promote expressor software.--Hu12 (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep deleted. This is yet another business providing back-office software of some sort. Investment research sites and trade magazines (Bloor Research, "Enterprise Systems", "IT Business Edge") are never enough to confer notability on a business of this sort, which the general public has very little occasion to deal with; they don't have any real audience outside the trade. When WP:CORP says that "media of limited interest and circulation" don't confer notability, this is what it's talking about. That's the sort of reference offered by the current userfied version, which also has the sort of profound POV issue you expect from conflict of interest, and remains obvious advertising, as well as being full of vague and uninformative strings of glittering generalities (a suite of team-oriented, role-based tools that support the project development and management lifecycle). - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] Can an admin do a temp undelete so that non-admins can evaluate the article? Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] There's a userfied version at User:Sccasey/expressor software entry draft that anyone can read. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] Is that substantially similar to the deleted version? Also, the AfD noted that the article was "hijacked" by Sccasey. What about the version prior to the "hijacking"? Timotheus Canens (talk) 06:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] The deleted version consists of this one paragraph and a link to expressor software; "expressor software is a data integration suite that enables collaborative, role-based team development, business rule reuse and end-to-end project lifecycle management. expressor was founded in 2003 by experienced data integration and data warehousing practitioners and executives. The company is headquartered in Burlington, MA and is funded by Commonwealth Capital Ventures, Globespan Capital Partners and Sigma Partners." Nothing in this suggests that this meets WP:CORP or this would survive at another AFD.--Hu12 (talk) 08:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] Thanks. I think I've seen enough. Though the AfD was weak, endorse close as reasonable. Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] Temporarily restore article edited on 12/1 by Sccasey. Apologies. I had overlooked the fact that Orange Mike had deleted the latest version of the article I had edited on 12/1 based on feedback from other editors. Secret then deleted that article, I believe. Can an admin please temporarily restore the 12/1 article -- which I sincerely attempted to draft from an objective point of view, so that all here can review on its merits? Btw, the draft on my talk page is very different -- from the article edited on 12/1. I would also like to apologize for posting edits without logging in first -- I was not trying to hide my identity, but simply forgot to log in. To take a step back, the criticisms of the expressor article fall into two broad categories: 1. It was created by single-purpose account editor with a conflict of interest. 2. The company is non-notable. To address the first: I have not attempted to hide my relationship with the company. I disclosed it. I did not engage in sock puppetry. It’s clear my first attempts to edit the expressor article fell short in several important respects, so based on feedback from editors, I carefully reviewed the conflict of interest, single purpose account and notability guidelines – as well as the articles on the company’s competitors in ETL and data integration, including Informatica, Talend, Pentaho, and IBM InfoSphere DataStage, and attempted to create an article that was similarly objective, non-promotional and cited third-party references from similar reliable sources. Re the second: Notability for a business-to-business software company is conferred by the independent news outlets, analysts and experts that potential customers pay for their objective research, analysis and opinions of the relative merits of competing solutions and companies. To address one argument made here, cynics can question their objectivity, but if news and research organizations such as Gartner, 451 Group, Computerworld, Bloor Research and ITtoolbox (all of which were cited as references in the expressor article) were only “self-publishing” houses for vendors or “splogs” – and not delivering valuable information for prospective buyers, they would not be in business today and would have withered away decades ago, since many have been in business that long – unfamiliar as they may be to some Wikipedia editors. To address the other argument re notability, if the only measure of notability for companies suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia is how much the “the general public” has “occasion to deal with” them – then none of the companies listed above are notable, even though they are in total selling more than a billion dollars a year in products and services to other companies who need to solve the same problems expressor solves. That “general public” measure would necessarily mean the deletion for non-notability of all the articles for companies and products but those that are sold and heavily marketed to consumers, such as the Chia Pet or Dungeons & Dragons. And if applied broadly, would render non-notable whole swaths of arcana such as the history of ancient Persian royalty. Sccasey (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sccasey (talk • contribs) 18:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] This is your second !vote [6][7], Not including the implicit !vote that comes with requesting this DRV[8]. Repeatedly begging for undeletion, and vote stacking multiple times, isn't apropriate when all the information needed for the comunity to make a decision is already availiable. "Media of limited interest and circulation" doesnt confer notability. Nothing in deleted text (provided above), or your Userfied copy suggests that this meets WP:CORP or this would survive at another AFD. You have a blatent conflict of interest and are a paid consultant editing on behalf of your client, expressor software. --Hu12 (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comment. Sccasey (talk · contribs) has !voted twice[9][10], and is the DRV requestor[11]. --Hu12 (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion, standard puff piece, WP:COI appears to be in play here. Guy (Help!) 12:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Expressor – This is getting a little disruptive and we certainly are not going to give the nominator relief here. Deletion endorsed and if the nominator hasn't read WP:COI already then they should – Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

KEEP/ADD ARTICLE: ShawnRog This debate seems to happen way too often around the lsiting of software and technology companies. I am a member of the press and cover the Business Intelligence and data warehousing space. Expressor is a well known solution provider in this industry and warrants a balanced and detailed listing in Wikipedia. Expressor's notoriety is supported by substantial trade press coverage, analyst coverage and recognition. It would be a noticeable omission for editors here at Wikipedia to not include companies such as Expressor in the database. —Preceding undated comment added 19:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC).

I am requesting a review of the deletion of the Expressor article and that this article be temporarily restored for all to examine during this review.

I have attempted to engage the editors who initiated and supported the Expressor AfD nomination, but none have responded. I have also attempted to communicate with the administrator who deleted the Expressor page – User:Secret -- before requesting this deletion review, but Secret also never responded. I am requesting undeletion of the Expressor page because I believe it was nominated for deletion based on a misinterpretation of the notability guidelines, supported by conflicting interpretations of what constitutes notability for software companies and mis-statements of fact.

As I noted in a comment posted in the AfD discussion for expressor competitor Talend: “Like Talend, expressor is a new entrant with substantial VC backing in the established market for data integration and ETL products -- a fact both companies can and have proven with numerous, industry-specific references. An editor here noted that Talend has only received coverage in IT-related publications -- but those are exactly the kind of objective, secondary sources of information that not only confer notability within this IT market segment, but they are also the kind of secondary research buyers seek when evaluating a solution. (And since it competes in the same market, it is not surprising that expressor cited many of the same sources, such as Gartner, in its entry.) By deleting entries for companies such as Talend and expressor (not to mention other similar entries for Pentaho, Apatar and Jitterbit) for non-notability, you are ensuring that Wikipedia readers can only find information here on the largest vendors and products, and therefore get a skewed and inaccurate picture of objective reality.” Sccasey (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn/incubate ~~userfy~~ -- the AfD discussion produced a weak result at best, and a search here suggests it is very likely that an article can be justified. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is already a Copy located here User:Sccasey/expressor_software_entry_draft.--Hu12 (talk) 08:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a pretty crappy draft, and if that's where we're headed then I agree that there is no need for an article here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sccasey has a probable conflict of interest regarding this topic. However, the topic itself appears to meet the general notability criterion ([1][2]) and the version of the article produced by Sccasey seemed to establish the notability of the topic. So, incubate (in this case, I think incubating is a better option than userfying because it will allow other editors to participate in the improvement) until a policy-compliant version of the article is produced. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 19:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleted. User:Sccasey is a Consultant for expressor software. See Spam Case. Nothing more than a Advertisement masquerading as an article for non-notable software(WP:CORP). References found are to splogs, press releases, self-submitted reviews and to partners that do not confer notability and do not count as reliable sources. Nothing in this suggests that this site or service has any sort of historical or technical significance of the kind needed to support an encyclopedia article.--Hu12 (talk) 08:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Temporarily restore article deleted on 12/10 by Secret. The article referenced by Hu12 above was an early draft that was subsequently edited based on feedback from other editors. This discussion should be based on the most recent article version that was deleted on 12/10 by Secret -- which is why I made that request when initiating this review. Sccasey (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)— Sccasey (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- I'd be very careful, you attempted to the same thing at Afd under the anon IP 24.147.28.111 (talk · contribs)^[3]. You are the requestor of this DRV, and have a Clear conflict of interest and are a paid consultant editing on behalf of your client, expressor software.

Canvassing other DRV's for Expressor, "keep Talend and expressor"
Canvassing participants of another AFD unrelated to Expressor, where you liked the outcome Twice
"'Admin'" shopping for undeletion after the AFD
Continued spamming despite warnings Under IP 24.2.206.247 (talk · contribs)[4][5]

Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising". Equally Wikipedia is not a place to promote expressor software.--Hu12 (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted. This is yet another business providing back-office software of some sort. Investment research sites and trade magazines (Bloor Research, "Enterprise Systems", "IT Business Edge") are never enough to confer notability on a business of this sort, which the general public has very little occasion to deal with; they don't have any real audience outside the trade. When WP:CORP says that "media of limited interest and circulation" don't confer notability, this is what it's talking about. That's the sort of reference offered by the current userfied version, which also has the sort of profound POV issue you expect from conflict of interest, and remains obvious advertising, as well as being full of vague and uninformative strings of glittering generalities (a suite of team-oriented, role-based tools that support the project development and management lifecycle). - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can an admin do a temp undelete so that non-admins can evaluate the article? Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a userfied version at User:Sccasey/expressor software entry draft that anyone can read. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that substantially similar to the deleted version? Also, the AfD noted that the article was "hijacked" by Sccasey. What about the version prior to the "hijacking"? Timotheus Canens (talk) 06:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted version consists of this one paragraph and a link to expressor software;

"expressor software is a data integration suite that enables collaborative, role-based team development, business rule reuse and end-to-end project lifecycle management. expressor was founded in 2003 by experienced data integration and data warehousing practitioners and executives. The company is headquartered in Burlington, MA and is funded by Commonwealth Capital Ventures, Globespan Capital Partners and Sigma Partners."

Nothing in this suggests that this meets WP:CORP or this would survive at another AFD.--Hu12 (talk) 08:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think I've seen enough. Though the AfD was weak, endorse close as reasonable. Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Temporarily restore article edited on 12/1 by Sccasey. Apologies. I had overlooked the fact that Orange Mike had deleted the latest version of the article I had edited on 12/1 based on feedback from other editors. Secret then deleted that article, I believe. Can an admin please temporarily restore the 12/1 article -- which I sincerely attempted to draft from an objective point of view, so that all here can review on its merits? Btw, the draft on my talk page is very different -- from the article edited on 12/1. I would also like to apologize for posting edits without logging in first -- I was not trying to hide my identity, but simply forgot to log in.

To take a step back, the criticisms of the expressor article fall into two broad categories: 1. It was created by single-purpose account editor with a conflict of interest. 2. The company is non-notable.

To address the first: I have not attempted to hide my relationship with the company. I disclosed it. I did not engage in sock puppetry. It’s clear my first attempts to edit the expressor article fell short in several important respects, so based on feedback from editors, I carefully reviewed the conflict of interest, single purpose account and notability guidelines – as well as the articles on the company’s competitors in ETL and data integration, including Informatica, Talend, Pentaho, and IBM InfoSphere DataStage, and attempted to create an article that was similarly objective, non-promotional and cited third-party references from similar reliable sources.

Re the second: Notability for a business-to-business software company is conferred by the independent news outlets, analysts and experts that potential customers pay for their objective research, analysis and opinions of the relative merits of competing solutions and companies. To address one argument made here, cynics can question their objectivity, but if news and research organizations such as Gartner, 451 Group, Computerworld, Bloor Research and ITtoolbox (all of which were cited as references in the expressor article) were only “self-publishing” houses for vendors or “splogs” – and not delivering valuable information for prospective buyers, they would not be in business today and would have withered away decades ago, since many have been in business that long – unfamiliar as they may be to some Wikipedia editors.

To address the other argument re notability, if the only measure of notability for companies suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia is how much the “the general public” has “occasion to deal with” them – then none of the companies listed above are notable, even though they are in total selling more than a billion dollars a year in products and services to other companies who need to solve the same problems expressor solves. That “general public” measure would necessarily mean the deletion for non-notability of all the articles for companies and products but those that are sold and heavily marketed to consumers, such as the Chia Pet or Dungeons & Dragons. And if applied broadly, would render non-notable whole swaths of arcana such as the history of ancient Persian royalty. Sccasey (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sccasey (talk • contribs) 18:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is your second !vote [6][7], Not including the implicit !vote that comes with requesting this DRV[8]. Repeatedly begging for undeletion, and vote stacking multiple times, isn't apropriate when all the information needed for the comunity to make a decision is already availiable. "Media of limited interest and circulation" doesnt confer notability. Nothing in deleted text (provided above), or your Userfied copy suggests that this meets WP:CORP or this would survive at another AFD. You have a blatent conflict of interest and are a paid consultant editing on behalf of your client, expressor software. --Hu12 (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sccasey (talk · contribs) has !voted twice[9][10], and is the DRV requestor[11]. --Hu12 (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, standard puff piece, WP:COI appears to be in play here. Guy (Help!) 12:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.