Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northgate Information Solutions

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 with a nod to WP:BEFORE and WP:RUBBISH. Skomorokh 00:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Northgate Information Solutions

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As it currently stands this article is very little more than a stub about a company that does little to claim notability and even less to demonstrate it. The talk page and page history show that this was formerly a much larger article concerned with the history of the company. This was removed by user:JamesBWatson on the 21st of July this year with the edit summary "Detailed account of every detail of the company's history is parochial and not notable". All this and previous minutiae removed from the article (detailed on the talk page) suggest to me that little or no encyclopaedic expansion is possible, and the few minutes I've spent on Google have backed up that impression.

The article implies there is detailed discussion of two of the companies products in the Microdata and Pick database articles, but in the first there are just a couple of passing mentions and in the second there is all that can be encyclopaedically said about the product (possibly more), and nothing of note about the company that could provide additional material for this article.

The fact that the company's Hemel Hempstead office was demolished following damage sustained in the 2005 Hertfordshire Oil Storage Terminal fire is not relevant to the company, and does not provide notability nor a reason for retaining the title as a redirect (either to that event or elsewhere) in my opinion.

I am also nominating:

Which are part of the same group apparently, and equally non-notable. Thryduulf (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Did you do your own Google News search? As shown here,[1], company has in-depth coverage from all major financial reporting such as Forbes - Wall Street Journal - Information Today and Computer Weekly not counting local and international coverage from other news sources. In addition, the company is viewed as the leading expert in their area, as shown here [[2] by a quick Google Scholar Search. This article should be built back-up and sourced not deleted. My project for the weekend now. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore this version, then prune and merge the other two articles. The "reward" article also contains useful info on it. The comapny appears to be a stock exchange quoted company, which should be sufficient to make it notable. The problem arises from Watson's wholesale pruning of the content. However the problem was not that it should not be there, but that it had excessive detail and was strucured as a list of events, rather than as a narrative article. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments If there was excessive detail, then which part of it should be kept? The version proposed to be restored consists almost entirely of an astonishingly detailed list of every minor incident in the company's history: I really do not see this as being of interest to anyone outside the company. The company may or may not be notable (I have not checked) but a list of trivia about its history is not.
- I find the statement "The comapny appears to be a stock exchange quoted company, which should be sufficient to make it notable" distinctly surprising. I can see nothing in either the general notability guidelines or the specific notability guideline for companies which could possibly be interpreted this way; nor is this, as far as I know, a generally accepted criterion: in fact, on the contrary the company guideline explicitly says "Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this case" (in the subsection Publicly traded corporations). Nor would it make sense to accept this as a criterion, as there are many thousands of small and insignificant companies quoted on stock exchanges round the world.
- In my opinion the article in its present state is very poor, but if someone can improve it then that will be excellent. However, I do not see restoring any of the old material as a way to improve it. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominating for AfD an article from which extensive earlier material was removed is not usually a proper way to go about things, unless the material was altogether irrelevant. I think its clear that between that material and what's in the refs mentioned above, there;s enough. The suggest merge seems like a good idea. DGG ( talk ) 08:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I did look at the information that was removed, and like the editor that removed it, I saw it as 99% trivia. Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 15 September 2009 (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.