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. I'm gonna go ahead (mmm, yeah) and also put a redirect to X-plane. Proto::type 12:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

XPLANE[edit]

Non-notable company. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 22:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read the Wikipedia deletion policy and found no criteria based on "notability." The criteria I saw there were: Verifiability, copyright, accuracy, objectivity. I also read "Articles and text which are capable of meeting these should usually be remedied by editing" as opposed to deletion.
Please forgive me if I am violating protocol, I am new to this. I am the founder and CEO of XPLANE and did not create this page. However I made a minor edit to it within the last week (link to my blog), and suddenly the article which had been there since 2004 was suddenly marked for deletion for no apparent reason. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dgray_xplane Dgray_xplane (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

We need a newbies message but I can't remember what it is. I can advise that the closing admin may well disregard comments by people with few edits to their credits. What is needed is verification from reliable sources. Aaron Gerdes above has highlighted one such but it needs more preferably in the article. Capitalistroadster 09:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dgray xplane (talkcontribs) 16:03 21 November 2006.

Many of the above links only mention XPLANE in passing or are invalid for other reasons (e.g., risingmedia.net's purpose seems to be promotion of companies for money). Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 17:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well i do have a day job but i am doing my best -- the above is what a quick Google search revealed.Dgray xplane 05:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to reiterate that I did not write the article; I only tried to modify it based on the assertion that there was no evidence that the company was notable. Never having been asked to do this before I took my best shot. Now the article has been accused of being too much like advertising, which was not my intent. It was an attempt to redress an assertion by Veinor that the company is not notable. In the field the company is highly regarded and recognized as an innovator. However as the Founder of the company it is difficult for me to write or be credible as an objective writer. However this is not a good reason to delete the entry. I have yet to see tangible suggestions for improving the article, other than the ones I have made myself. Dgray xplane 01:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


— Bnarelle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The article is beginning to establish notability. I provided the first cite, a CNN article about XPLANE's illustrations of technical business models helping dot com investors. Industry participants and experts will continue to add their knowledge to reinforce notability and expand verifiable information.

I want to stress that this article does need cleanup, but deletion would be a loss for the wiki. If users are still finding material objectionable, I recommend we engage in a Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle like grown-ups. ;) Aaron Gerdes 21:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As evidence of notability, here are mentions of XPLANE in the press going back to the year 2000:

Dgray xplane 01:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia guidelines (Bolding mine):

A company or corporation is notable if it meets any of the following criteria:

1. The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for the following: Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the company or corporation talks about itself, and advertising for the company. Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories.

First: Reading through the list of press mentions above, I believe it will evident that the press mentions are not media reprints of press releases, nor are they advertising, nor are they publications where the company taks about itself.

Second: The articles are not trivial coverage based on the definition given here. Since the press mentions meet the first criteria, and are not covered by any of the exceptions, then I submit that XPLANE has met the standards provided by Wikipedia. Dgray xplane 22:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: As a professional in the field of Visual Facilitation for the past 20 years, I agree that XPLANE is an appropriate topic for Wikipedia. Their work is foundational to a field that contributes to enriched understanding of complex information for businesses and communities. As a result of my research for two books on this topic I have concluded that the capacity to use visuals, symbols, icons and other pictoral references is an important skill for the "information age". The work XPLANE provides also increases their client's capacity to think systemically -- a skill that is critical during this era of globalization.-Nancy Margulies, 21 November 2006

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.