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. Keep !votes argue correctly that sources would exist to establish notability. Including them and problems with neutrality and sourcing can be addressed through editing. Regards So Why 10:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RTTS[edit]

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

Obvious advertising for a non-notable business. Article created by User:Bhayduk, named in the article as the proprietor (S-corporation); a fairly obvious conflict of interest, admitted on the talk page. Article is obvious advertising and favorably slanted in tone and attempts to claim inherited notability: RTTS has serviced Fortune 500 and small and medium sized businesses in many vertical markets including pharmaceuticals, banking, insurance, brokerage, health care, software vendors, government agencies, media, telecommunications, professional services, retail, higher education, transportation and entertainment...

"References" supplied are to Gartner, an investment analyst group producing reports on business investment opportunities, and a similar site. Their writ covers all businesses that can be invested in, and as such mention by them confers no notability at all. Google News Archives results suggest that their closest brush with notability was having a press release picked up by Forbes, whose byline says "PRNewswire". Given the advertising tone, notability is a side issue.

News results are difficult to interpret because of other uses of the term "RTTS". Note also that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomos Software is related and by the same author. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep RTTS is a notable company, having a long history and lots of independent articles writen about it. Feel free to go the the web site where many articles are listed. Gartner is a well-known and respected information consulting firm. The article was written keeping a NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhayduk (talk • contribs) 19:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep They may be a notable company, but the article does not show it very well & is somewhat promotional.. What does probably show it is the article in linux.com, which is not PR for them, and the one in Business Week. I do not consider either of them as products of public relations. Gartner is indeed well-respected, but I am unable to judge the nature of the discussion in their report. Tone is fixable, so the argument that the article should be deleted regardless of notability does not seem reasonable. DGG ( talk ) 20:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - About Gartner, the issue isn't so much whether they are independent or reliable --- for the sake of their business model I would hope they are --- but whether being the subject of a Gartner writeup confers notability. Their field is both too broad (their analysts apparently cover the entire IT field) and too narrow (in that they reach a relatively small reader base) to confer notability. The question is, "does being covered by Gartner turn a business into an encyclopedia subject?" Given the nature of their business, I don't think so. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it does imply just that. Their business is publishing reports on notable developments in their field. If they did reports on trivia, the readers would question both the value of the service, and the reliability of their judgment. They reach the appropriate reader base for the subjects they work on. There's no reason why a specialized service would not be a RS for notability in its specialty. DGG ( talk ) 22:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The business notability guideline says that local newspapers and other media of "limited interest and circulation" do not in themselves establish notability. Gartner's reports would not seem to reach an audience much wider than your typical hometown newspaper. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About Gartner - As somebody who works in IT, has previously had acess to the Gartner service, and also knows somebody who writes as an analyst for Gartner, I'd like to comment on whether Gartner confers notability. Gartner provides services to customers, and will review and write about any company that one of their customers inquires about. As such, there isn't the editorial oversight in selection of topics that would give rise to notability. However, I absolutely would rely on Gartner as a reliable source for facts such as Acme Inc. is the leading vendor in mail-order anvils with a market share of 78%. So I would not rely on the existence of a Gartner report to establish notability, but the facts contained within may establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see WP:SPAM at play in the article, as it is written fairly NPOV, with nothing that really screams advertising or so slanted it can't be fixed. "WP:COI" does not seem to be cause for deletion; you may want to re-read the guideline. The notability seems to be established by awards. In particular, vokeinc.com focuses on "the application lifecycle." The Gartner mention is not a standard report on RTTS financials, but an award for a specific achievement. I hate bringing up Google in Wikipedia, but since you mention it, try searching for "outsourcing statistics" if that constitutes a notability claim. —AllanBz ✍ 21:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - The Linux.com and Business Week articles certainly are reliable sources and would count towards notability, but together aren't enough to establish notability. If some other sources can be turned up it would be a keep. -- Whpq (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This ComputerWorld column by Jamie Eckle has a few column inches dedicated to an interview with the RTTS president/CEO, Bill Hayduk, I suppose as an authority on retention. I do not know where it would go in the article, but I think it germane to this discussion. --141.160.5.251 (talk) 22:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The artilce doesn't really discuss RTTS so I don't see it supproting notability for RTTS. -- Whpq (talk) 01:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: I have relisted this discussion to generate more discussion about the sources. The sources discussed are this article from Linux, this article from BusinessWeek (~~which does not mention the subject of this article~~), and this passing mention in a second BusinessWeek article. Cunard (talk) 09:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The company is mentioned on the second page of the Business Week article. -- Whpq (talk) 10:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for providing that link. I've stricken out the incorrect statement I made. Cunard (talk) 19:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Borderline case for WP:N. Linux.com and two BusinessWeek cites seem good. Voke reference goes nowhere. In the history since the nomination, there seem to be good-faith efforts to clean up article by user Bhayduk since the nomination (especially vanity tone), without patrolling of reasonable edits from others. --Glantrischmozzle (talk) 09:56, 2 November 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.