Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 29#Westbrook Technologies

:{{DRV links|Westbrook_Technologies|xfd_page=|article=}}

Westbrook Technologies is a major document management software company which has received awards and recognition from various sources. It has been deleted for advertising/promotion, however I feel that the sources cited and language used show the importance of Westbrook Technologies in the document management industry. I have discussed with the editor who deleted, but he/she has not responded from my further questions and debate, giving me no further explanation. Please reconsider the deletion of the article (perhaps restoring the article for editors to see and discuss) or please inform me how I can edit it for approval. Odonnetp (talk) 19:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• Question do you have anything that could in any way be considered a conflict of interest regarding this subject, and if so what is the nature of that conflict of interest? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
• I am new to Wikipedia and was not aware of Wikipedia's policies on COI. I have included it in my talk page as is recommended on the conflict of interest page. I don't believe COI is a valid reason to bar this article from inclusion in Wikipedia, however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odonnetp (talk • contribs) 21:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
• Welcome to Wikipedia! You're right to say that a conflict of interest is, in itself, not sufficient to prevent an article's inclusion but in this case I think there were two other problems. First, there was a lack of reliable sources that were independent of Westbrook itself; and second, the writing was more appropriate to corporate marketing literature for the technologically literate than to an encyclopaedia for general readership. Neither of these things necessarily means that Westbrook Technologies can't have coverage on Wikipedia. What it means is that Westbrook Technologies can't have this coverage. There's also a discussion to be had about whether any material we do include about Westbrook Technologies belongs in a separate article of its own, or as part of another, larger one. That discussion will hinge around the concept of notability.

  The article as written began: Westbrook Technologies, founded in 1990, provides software applications to businesses across every vertical market – enabling organizations to streamline processes, improve efficiency, increase productivity and address specific business challenges. Feature + benefit + jargon is how marketers are trained to write for a tech-savvy audience, but encyclopaedists need to use plain English aimed at teenagers. If Westbrook Technologies was found to be notable within Wikipedia's definition, then a proper article might begin with something like: Westbrook Technologies is an American software company based in Wherever, Connecticut. The company has xx employees and a turnover of $yy. It has won an award for (award, plus link to independent, reliable source, such as a newspaper with a reputation for fact-checking). It was founded in 1990.

  It's not necessary to overturn NawlinWiki's speedy deletions in this case, but I'm very willing to work with you to see if there isn't coverage we can provide within Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. The first stage would be to compile a list of independent, reliable sources that provide reasonably in-depth coverage of the company. The sources cannot be connected with Westbrook Technologies, or host advertisements for them, and they cannot consist of user-submitted content. This means no blogs, no messageboard posts, no Facebook pages, no Youtube videos, and no wikis. (Yes, that does mean that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source by our own definition.)

  You're welcome to post the list of sources here or on my talk page, it's up to you.—S Marshall T/C 00:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Userify I think the best solution would be to move the deleted article to a subpage in your user space to be worked on further, according to S Marshall's excellent suggestions. I'm willing to do it. Will that be satisfactory? DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with DGG. (See WP:USERFY for more details on what that entails.) Stifle (talk) 13:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Thanks for the feedback. This is new to me, so of course there is a learning curve. DGG, if you can add it to my userspace that would be great. Stifle, I will check out WP:USERFY.

  For sources, I used the following:

1. [http://pinpoint.microsoft.com/en-US/PartnerDetails.aspx?PartnerId=4295493826 Westbrook Technologies is a Microsoft Partner with silver ISV competency]
2. [http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=WhYiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=AXQFAAAAIBAJ&pg=2073,2206003&dq=westbrook-technologies-inc+-prweb&hl=en Document managing company forms new teaming]
3. [http://www.banktech.com/features/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=15305560 Fort Billings FCU Shreds Paper with Fortis]
4. [http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20090505/business/business1.html PCS launches document management software]
5. [http://www.ct.org/Fast_50_2006.asp The 2006 Deloitte Connecticut Fast 50]
6. [http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Banner-Health-Westbrook-Technologies-Named-2009-I-Cubed-Award-Winners-Integrated-Solutions-973738.htm Banner Health and Westbrook Technologies Named 2009 I-Cubed Award Winners by Integrated Solutions Magazine]
7. [http://bx.businessweek.com/sharepoint360/view?url=http%3A%2F%2Fc.moreover.com%2Fclick%2Fhere.pl%3Fr2702855998%26f%3D9791 New Release of Westbrook FortisBlue™ Includes SharePoint® Integration Option and Other Advances]

   I realize that the last two are press releases, but I thought they would be note worthy because the first one is announcing an award Westbrook had received and the second is used to cite that Westbrook is integrated with Microsoft SharePoint. I had also found these two sources in the meantime and was going to insert them into the page somehow, or do you not see these as reliable sources?

8. [http://magazine1.vertmarkets.com/isminfo/index.php?option=com_jambozine&layout=article&view=page&aid=4020&Itemid=5 Build Competitive Advantage With ECM]
9. [http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=59201456 A medical center goes paperless for HIPAA; San Francisco International joins nine airports in biometrics deployment.]Odonnetp (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• I wouldn't personally use sources 1, 6 or 7. Wikipedia's interested in what independent sources say, not about what companies or organisations say about themselves. The article should be a summary of those sources that remain, without infringing copyright.—S Marshall T/C 16:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Is there a minimum number of third-party sources an article needs to be included in Wikipedia? When I revised the article from the first verson, my thinking was the more sources I had, the better. But, if an article is deleted due to the use of press releases since those are not third-party authoritative sources, is simply deleting those articles from the article enough to have the article accepted. For example, if I take out sources 1, 6, and 7 from the article, will that make the article acceptable for being approved? Odonnetp (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

::S Marshall is just offering an opinion. There's no prohibition on the use of primary sources, and using primary sources doesn't reflect badly on the article as a whole. But secondary sources are considered more reliable so, if you can find them, use them too. Also understand that these types of primary sources are discounted in determining the notability of the subject, a criterion for its inclusion here. --Bsherr (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

:::Opinion is absolutely right. What I say isn't gospel, it's what I think.—S Marshall T/C 23:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

::::actually, the opinions can be harmonized: mixing in unnecessary primary sources can diluting the visibility of the secondary sources; the same can be true of weak secondary sources when there are better ones that cover the same ground. When there are good sources, putting in poor ones also gives the impression of including everything conceivably possible, which is a frequent promotional technique. DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

::::I have moved the article to User:Odonnetp/Westbrook Technologies; when you're ready, ask me or any admin about moving it back. DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)