Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1010data

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 redirect to Advance Publications. MelanieN (talk) 01:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1010data

1010data (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been around for more than eight years but it is still only a badly referenced stub. Presumably only notable within the narrow world of its class of users. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Some of this is cited to the company's website or uncited. There's a lot of "product brochure" content with buzzwords such as "tightly integrated" etc. Rather than waste volunteer editors' time trying to maintain neutrality of this article, I suggest delete & redirect. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I feel that 1010data is notable for a number of reasons, among them: being one of the most successful modern exponents of the Iversonian array-programming paradigm; being the "gold standard" for analysis in mortgage-backed securities (virtually every firm that trades MBS/ABS uses them for loan-level analysis); having played a significant role in the analytics that led to Paulson & Co.'s huge bet against the subprime housing market; being one of the first cloud-based big-data platforms (long before either of those terms was current). I am the original author of the article and am trying to expand on it in my spare time (full disclosure: I am Chief Scientist at 1010data, and am particularly interested in 1010data's role in the historically important, but today mostly vanished array-programming world, but I am most assuredly not being paid or in any way encouraged to edit this article -- the company's attitude towards the existence of a Wikipedia article about them has essentially been "huh? what's that?") I am trying very hard to avoid buzzwords; a term like "highly integrated" was not meant to be a buzzword at all (the platform "is", well, highly integrated) but I can see that it might sound that way and will change it. I am doing my best to avoid even the appearance of puffery and keep the article purely factual, neutral and objective, and I appreciate this and any other suggestions for improving the article (or edits that improve it, should they be deemed worth the effort). As I am sure most editors are aware, it can be difficult to find satisfying references outside of the business-press echo chamber for almost any software product or company. Almost all of the 20 citations currently in the article, however, are independent, with a number of books and academic articles among them. The customer list is an exception, citing as it does the company's own website. I have been trying to avoid the press-release-driven "business press" as much as possible, but it is also the case that a list of customers is often hard to reference outside of such press. I looked at numerous other software company websites and when there is a customer list, typically it is uncited, or cites the company website or the business press. I will attempt to augment this section with business press citations. In summary, I realize that, as (essentially) the only contributor so far to this article, my vote is going to be considered biased, but I would ask the members of the discussion to consider whether it would not be worth instead allowing it to remain and be improved through efforts of interested volunteers -- myself and, I hope at some point, others. I particularly ask this because modern representatives of the art of array programming (as hugely influential as it was after Iverson's original publication of A Programming Language in 1974) are few and far between, and I believe that the fact that 1010data (as well as Kx systems) has achieved significant commercial success with this approach is in itself worthy of some notice. Someday an archaeologist tracing the history of array computing from APL in 1974 to ???? in ???? will want to fill in the gaps and an article about 1010data might be an important lead. Kiscica (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  17:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kiscica: you stated that as the original author of this article you are trying to expand it in your spare time. This does not seem to be true because this has been a stub for eight years according to the AfD nominator. And, I can see for myself this has been stub from December 2007 until it was prodded in August 2016. Also, to me you hardly "sound" like a Chief Scientist and more like a speculator, such as on the stock market, or perhaps, more likely involved with public relations for this company. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Steve Quinn: I did create the original article eight years ago. There wasn't all that much to say then -- 1010data was a very small, though interesting company and I didn't know all that much about it yet! It is true that I have refrained from editing the article since then. I would have far preferred if someone else (preferably someone not involved with the company) had done so. However, no one has, and I feel that 1010data is unquestionably notable enough for a Wikipedia article. I meant that I am undertaking to expand it in my free time (what there is of it) now, at least until someone better-qualified to do so takes over. I do not know how to persuade you that I am neither a "speculator on the stock market" nor "involved with public relations," but I can assure you that I am Chief Scientist for the firm. My name is Adam Jacobs and there is a fair amount of evidence on the web that should make it clear that I am who I say I am. I write the code, not the PR. Kiscica (talk) 03:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if anyone is interested in the history of this article, it was actually created in December 2007 and request for speedy was posted on that same day [1]. Speedy was declined [2], and no editing occurred on this article until January 2008 [3] (1 year and one month later) - but this "editing" was a request for speedy (as can be seen). Then it was declined [4]. A small amount of content was added that month, but actually nothing more until August 2016. Editors can thumb through the history. People added categories, came through with AWB, fixed the ifobox, added a "See Also" section, but no real editing was done on this article until May 2011, when content was removed [5], [6]. More content would not be added until 29 August 2016, two or three days after being tagged for AfD. It was requested for speedy for the third time on 26 August 2016 [7]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- still reads as a WP:PROMO with sections such as "Products" and "Customers". WP:WEBHOST applies as this information can be found on the company's web site and does not add value to the encyclopedia. I'm not changing my "redirect" vote and suggest delete then redirect. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @K.e.coffman: I modeled the "Products" and "Customers" sections off other software company pages on Wikipedia. If having such information made a page WP:PROMO, we would have to delete most articles about software companies. If you feel that they are detrimental to the article, why not just delete those sections instead of recommending the deletion of the entire article? The fact that 1010data happens to have a product and customers does not fundamentally impact its notability and I feel strongly, for reasons that I've already outlined, that 1010data is notable. Kiscica (talk) 03:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not hopeful about the added sources. Two books are generally about Big Data, but that is not this company, it is nomenclature "for data sets that are so large or complex that traditional data processing applications are inadequate," and we have a Wikipedia article on it (see wiki link in previous sentence). I noticed this company received barely passing mention in one book [8]. This indicates a lack of significant coverage. Except the wording in that book comes across as overly promotional - so, is it really an independent reliable source? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete and redirect. Article is clearly promotional. Anything that includes two *ssS buzzwords and calls itself a "platform" seems questionable to me. Advance Publications could certainly use more prose instead of being mostly bullet lists too. There probably could be enough sources to construct a neutral narrative. W Nowicki (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @W Nowicki: I added the *aaS buzzwords because there are extensive, well-developed Wikipedia articles about them and they describe what 1010data does quite well. I don't even believe 1010data's marketing actually uses these terms although I don't really know. 1010data does call its software a "platform" but, seriously, that is what the industry calls software that is used for developing and deploying applications, which is exactly what 1010data's software is for. Again, if you believe there are better terms and that these nothing but are empty "buzzwords," wouldn't it be better to give the article the benefit of the doubt and change them to more appropriate terminology rather than simply delete it? Kiscica (talk) 03:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be precise, there is an article on platform as a service and one on software as a service. This is supposed to be English Wikipedia, not acronym Wikipedia. And yes, I know what a "platform" means in this context since I have been in the industry for many years. But articles are supposed to be readable by those who do not already know the jargon. As for your last question, that indeed is the debate we are having. The argument below also has merits too, so rewriting this into an article following the guidelines (if there are enough sources) would also be a reasonable outcome. That would probably require work on both articles in my opinion. W Nowicki (talk) 23:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do not think merging with Advance Publications is a sensible solution. Advance has acquired 1010data and is its parent company, but Advance is not a software or technology company (1010data is essentially its first and, to my knowledge, only acquisition so far in this space) and discussion appropriate to a software company would be out of place in a more general page about the parent company. 1010data has had several close competitors over the years that were acquired by larger companies, for example Vertica (by Hewlett Packard), Greenplum (by EMC Corporation), Netezza (by IBM), ParAccel (by Actian) and Aster Data Systems (by Teradata) and all of these have retained their own articles, despite the fact that in those cases the parent company essentially absorbed the smaller company; 1010data in contrast is an independent subsidiary. Kiscica (talk) 03:02, 13 September 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1010data&oldid=1071333584"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1010data, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.