 | This article was nominated for deletion on June 22, 2008. The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nom. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Notability? edit
I put up a PROD notice on notability which was removed with a comment that the article does assert notability (but no discussion and no additional text or references added). The company appears to have been acquired back in the mid-90's, and I fail to see what was notable about the company before then. The article appears to be trying to asserting notability through it's relationships with other companies, or with the company that acquired it, etc, but this does not confer notability on this company. The article on the acquiring company Logica includes a one-liner note, which to me, speaks to the relative notability of this company. --Bardcom (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- @Phil, please stop removing the deletion notices until you have demonstrated why Aldiscon is notable. Twice now, you've removed deletion notices without explanation. --Bardcom (talk) 14:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- I provided explations in my edit summaries. First when you put on the prod tag you claimed that the article did not assert notability. If "Aldiscon is historically significant to the mobile sector in two major aspects" is not an assertion of notability then what is? That assertion on its own is enough to get past an A7 speedy deletion, which is why I've removed the tag again, and I removed the prod tag because there is a reference to back up the claim to notability. If you are so keen to get this deleted then take it to WP:AFD. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Phil, you are incorrect to remove the CS7 tag without justifying notability. Please stop. Please explain and provide references to the claims within the article. I have read the article, and your edit note, and neither makes clearer the claims to notability. Your edit summary refers to an unreferenced claim within the article and is clearly not enough to assert notability. As to the claims within the article, it makes two claims. Both claims are pretty unclear and unspecific, and most importantly, without reference. The first:
- You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "assert". Please look it up in a dictionary. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- successful introduction of major independent software suppliers to the technology of global mobile networks - What does this actually mean? Is Aldiscon claiming to be the first independent software company to supply software to a global mobile network? There are no references that I can find to back this up. Perhaps you can provide a reference?
- It represents the successful establishment of several innovative mobile software startup companies based in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, UK. Aldiscon, Apion, Aepona, Anam, Ammeon, Accuris Networks and Altion are just a handful of such Irish companies (in fact, all of these specific companies were started by the original Aldiscon founders) - is the article claiming that this company is notable because the people involved in Aldiscon went on to form other companies? In my view, this goes to the notability of the people involved, not the company.
- In short, I fail to see why you are asserting that this company is notable. Please explain. I'll take your advice and list this in an AFD also. --Bardcom (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Phil, you are incorrect to remove the CS7 tag without justifying notability. Please stop. Please explain and provide references to the claims within the article. I have read the article, and your edit note, and neither makes clearer the claims to notability. Your edit summary refers to an unreferenced claim within the article and is clearly not enough to assert notability. As to the claims within the article, it makes two claims. Both claims are pretty unclear and unspecific, and most importantly, without reference. The first:
- I provided explations in my edit summaries. First when you put on the prod tag you claimed that the article did not assert notability. If "Aldiscon is historically significant to the mobile sector in two major aspects" is not an assertion of notability then what is? That assertion on its own is enough to get past an A7 speedy deletion, which is why I've removed the tag again, and I removed the prod tag because there is a reference to back up the claim to notability. If you are so keen to get this deleted then take it to WP:AFD. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
(outdent)I have found evidence of Notability in that Aldiscon invented SMPP. This has now been added to the article. --Bardcom (talk) 09:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)