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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xiotech[edit]

Xiotech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has been thrice speedily deleted, first in 2006. It appears to have only one third-party source, which only asserts that the company has close ties to Seagate. However, corporations have no inhertied notability on Wikipedia. --hydrox (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This Wiki article is within the guidelines and appropriate to the private company/ corporate related to the date storage community on Wikipedia.

Examples:

Xiotech has posted relevant and supporting company and historical notes that are not available anywhere else online. Additionally, the notes and properly referenced content is intended to be informative and educational in nature. Incoming/ outgoing links aid searches and my become broken should this article be removed.

Finally the Xiotech article is a work in progress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Daw (talk • contribs) 17:16, February 7, 2011

  • Delete ...and you are an SPA. EEng (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll break down your sources one by one:
  • [1]: A blog/wiki type source. Such Internet publications are not generally considered reliable primary sources for an article because they have little editorial oversight, resulting to a high risk of eg. vanity press (paid publishing). However, had the same article appeared on the New York Times, the company would be famous and notable without a question. Wikibon is a wiki.
  • [2]: A brief reiteration of a company press release in an industry publication. Seems to lack any significant editorial input. Press releases are self-published sources.
  • [3]: Comes closest to being an indepent secondary source with editorial input. However, Infostor is not a general publication, but another "industry publication".
To sum up, none of these references (any of them alone, nor all of them combined) constiture significant coverage in third party sources, thus failing the very first sentence of WP:CORP. --hydrox (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Commentary:
  • The latter is a blog hosted at eWeek. It is mostly an opinion writing (eg. last sentence: "Both of these Minnesota companies, with Soran at Compellent and equally first-class CEO Casey Powell at Xiotech, have excellent leadership, IMO.") Needless to say, no one expects opinion writings to be reliable sources.
  • The former is a search result of multiple articles, and some of them could constitute significant coverage in the above-mentioned eWeek publication (eg. [4]), but I would need you to write a clean article in Wiki markup to assess whether they support the facts you want to bring forth in the Wikipedia article.
Currently, the article is written in a promotional sense but still lacking reference for the key sentence of the lead-in that would assess its significance "Xiotech Corporation ... is a privately held data storage company, one of the largest in the world" (emphasis added). --hydrox (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken, or have misspoken. Comments of opinion are everywhere on Wikipedia. That is one of the things the Blockquote, bquote, cquote etc templates are for. It is preferred that they be opinions from experts in the field. The source from which they are derived is checked for reliability in its documentation. Blogs are counterindicated, but blogs of experts in the field are just fine. Anarchangel (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing, but an opinion writing can not be the only source for an article, unless it is a very remarkable opinion writing. Here it also appears as though the opinion writer might have a COI. --hydrox (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I am sure your contributions on this field of technology are welcomed by the Wikipedia community. But this discussion is not about whether the article is written from the NPOV (Neutral Point of View). Espcially after your several reiterations, the article is now written in a way that meets Wikipedia's requirements of encyclopedic and neutral tone, but this is not the central concern raised in the deletion discussion. Apart from the NPOV policy, Wikipedia also has a notbility policy, that mandates which headwords are considered article-worthy. For corporations, this is outlined in the WP:CORP policy. It might seem frustrating, but I still think this article does not provide enough references to unaffiliated 3rd party resources to establish significant coverage. --hydrox (talk) 06:06, 9 February 2011 (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.
More