- 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Object Management Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Only sources are own websites or wire agency PRs. Has a notable CEO Richard Soley who might still be having a page only because he 'might' be transcending to WP:Academic (Someone might want to look at that and check that too). Fails WP:ORG. That being said, the company is linked with founding few standards that have their own pages. But, many of those are also started by anonymous IP addresses.
Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 04:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: When someone claims "Only sources are" rather than "only sources in the article" or "only sources I have found in my googling are" and doesn't explain the sources found on the books link I am going to give a fairly quick keep. (Apart from the fact it rings a bell in my brain from way back but that may be faultly). 11:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs)
- Speedy Keep Unless the material currently in the article is materially false, this organization meets any notability standard I can think of. The problem here does not appear to be notability, but that the article is poorly sourced and cited. One could start with those quarterly meetings and search for media coverage. Additionally, the constituent member companies that make up the consortium may have their own coverage of the subject. Given that this organization appears to have played a role in the implementation of multiple tech standards, perhaps there is coverage in tech-specific websites?
- Further, I have to ask if the editor nominating this company did any WP:BEFORE? A simple Google search results in this actual list of reliable secondary sources including peer-reviewed papers in Science Direct
- https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/object-management-group
- The website Chrunchbase appears to have its own set of information on the OMG: https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/object-management-group
- ProPublica has some information here: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/43047994
- And this is literally what I found in about 5 minutes. The nominating editor would be strongly recommended to please read WP:Before prior to nominating further articles for deletion. Hyperion35 (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Interestingly, I didn't find any of such things on my search. Google search results are also geo-specific that can be one reason. About books, the author was the company itself and hence that would be a primary source and not a secondary source. I feel remorseful to bring it here now. I can withdraw it but I guess I will let this get closed as 'keep' so that if any other editor in future also fails to see notability and would want to bring it to AFD etc, they can refer to this discussion. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 08:49, 23 March 2021 (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.