The result was no consensus. A definitive close is made impossible in part by two things: the prevalence of SPAs, and the batch nomination. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Non-notable tech business. Speedily deleted twice before as advertising. Current version shows some essentially trivial announcements circulated in IT-related sources ( [1] [2]) but the first looks like a recirculated press release and the second is in fact a blog. Other sources are all IT industry related, not enough to confer general notability. Not sure that claiming to be the first commercial open source vendor of data integration software is a sufficient claim of historical or technical importance. Smerdis of Tlön ( talk) 17:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
“ | Then a real Wikipedia apparatchik,
Ihcoyc, decided that enough was enough, and who were these people who dared write about products and companies he did not know himself. Ihcoyc is a real Wikipedia expert specializing in religious content, and also an attorney from Indiana (per his profile). He actually wrote an essay
The presumption of non-notability for Internet related, computing, and services businesses, in which he proclaims:
I presume that a business or product is unlikely to be notable if it:
So here goes Ihcoyc, who cannot tolerate stuff he personally does not know about, and he slams the two Talend pieces with a request to delete: His claims: that references like eWeek, PCWorld or InfoWorld, or even Gartner, do not count. If it does not appear in the Indiana Bar Association Gazette, it isn’t relevant to the Wikipedia readers. |
” |