| Revision as of 03:05, 20 January 2006 editR. fiend (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers24,209 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:59, 21 January 2006 edit undoKhoikhoi (talk | contribs)71,605 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
| ***You can't undelete an article that ]. -] 03:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC) | ***You can't undelete an article that ]. -] 03:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''', the company has already been deleted, why do we want to keep the CEO if what he founded isn't notable? ]|] 02:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete''', the company has already been deleted, why do we want to keep the CEO if what he founded isn't notable? ]|] 02:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' vanity. --] 00:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:59, 21 January 2006
Seth Ravin 2
Was previously nominated with a disputed closure (many voted it to be merged to an article that has since been deleted). Went to DRV and is relisted now. My vote is delete, as it's obviously a vanity article. His sole claim to fame is being the CEO of a company that was not deemed encyclopedic. Also, from his IP, the subject/author has attempted to insert advertizing into the Software maintenance article, and removed delete and merge votes from he previous AFD. At DRV, one user noted that he/she "didn't want to scare away any sort of valid contributors of that stature". Well, this guy hasn't contributed anything else (most people who write about themselves don't), and frankly, we can do with less behavior of his sort around here anyway. -R. fiend 20:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, based on Tony Sidaway's evidence at Deletion Review. Elle vécut heureuse (Be eudaimonic!) 20:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per R. fiend. Tech executive, article reads like a resume in prose. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Actually because I made it prose. Before it, it was just a long rant. Maybe I'm too much of a copyeditor.... Elle vécut heureuse (Be eudaimonic!) 22:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per above. -- JJay 21:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete This reads as a resumé crossed with a corporate biography and doesn't demonstrate a claim to personal notability. (aeropagitica) 21:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Help us out will you? Where's this deletion review you are referring to? How are we supposed to make intelligent comment without the evidence? --kingboyk 23:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
View here for the final version of the Seth Ravin discussion before decision was made to relist. Please would relisting nominators coming from deletion review add this information in the future. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 23:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep, seems to be a fairly significant player. --kingboyk 01:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC) Changed to weak keep after considering some of the comments which followed. --kingboyk 09:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, resumes do tend to make people seem important, even when they aren't. -R. fiend 02:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yes indeed, and if I had no external sources to verify the claims it would be a delete. Do a Google search and read some of the news stories mentioning him! --kingboyk 09:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, resumes do tend to make people seem important, even when they aren't. -R. fiend 02:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - significant figure in sourcing of software systems, per WSJ story. Article clearly needs reworking but existing article provides useful information for that project. --- --- Charles Stewart 02:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable CEO of already deleted non-notable company. Reads like a resume and/or advertising. Zunaid 11:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Grabbed the Georgia state employee pension system from Oracle. Not a big boy, but certainly a player at the table. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- That might indicate notability for TomorrowNow, the actual company involved. Why not write an article on that and redirect? -R. fiend 15:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- It might make sense to abort this AfD, undelete TomorrowNow and put together a new AfD convering both articles, though I won't do that since I am happy with keeping this article and making TomorrowNow a redirect to it. I think that the person is somewhat more notable than the company, since he seems to be going through a series of posts in the software industry doing similar sourcing deals. It seems that Seth makes the companies newsworthy, not the other way around. --- Charles Stewart 18:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I can't undelete TomorrowNow because there's never been an article at that title. Feel free to write one; I doubt I'd nominate it for AFD but I won't know until I look at it. If this guy has done more than have his company get a big contract then someone should indicate that. All Tony's managed to do is show that he's been mentioned in a newspaper article.Right now the article is just godawful vanity.-R. fiend 18:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was thinking of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rimini Street. Well Ravin gets more than a mention: he's prominently mentioned several times in a substantial article in the WSJ on a major new trend in software service contracts. The article mentions several contracts that Ravin's company won, though offhand I don't recall how many of them would compare in significance with Tony's example. --- Charles Stewart 02:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- Postscript Ravin also won Coors Brewing Company from Peoplesoft. --- Charles Stewart 02:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I can't undelete TomorrowNow because there's never been an article at that title. Feel free to write one; I doubt I'd nominate it for AFD but I won't know until I look at it. If this guy has done more than have his company get a big contract then someone should indicate that. All Tony's managed to do is show that he's been mentioned in a newspaper article.Right now the article is just godawful vanity.-R. fiend 18:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- It might make sense to abort this AfD, undelete TomorrowNow and put together a new AfD convering both articles, though I won't do that since I am happy with keeping this article and making TomorrowNow a redirect to it. I think that the person is somewhat more notable than the company, since he seems to be going through a series of posts in the software industry doing similar sourcing deals. It seems that Seth makes the companies newsworthy, not the other way around. --- Charles Stewart 18:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- That might indicate notability for TomorrowNow, the actual company involved. Why not write an article on that and redirect? -R. fiend 15:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Has retired from the company that gave him his supposed claim to fame, and even that I don't find particularly notable - companies are always switching technology providers. The whole 'little man gave big boy one in the eye' impression comes more from the prose of the WSJ journalist than the importance of the event he was writing about. When the article is created by its subject, I err on the side of deletion because of the problem of keeping it free of the POV of the only person apparently interested in it. --Malthusian (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Seems a bit odd to delete an article about a character merely because he's retired from a company. Should we now delete Tony Benn because the man has retired from Parliament? On the reason for keeping, it's not the prose that does it, but the fact that he won the Georgia contract from under the nose of Oracle. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- His company got the contract (which, in itself, is hardly an astounding fact). Are we going to have articles on every person on the planet who has been involved ina business deal? -R. fiend 16:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- It's pretty borderline, for the reasons you point out. The fact that it was created as free vanispamcruftisement is what pushes me over that line. I still don't see an IT contract changing hands as particularly notable. Believe it or not, a lot of big organisations give contracts to small companies. --Malthusian (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Seems a bit odd to delete an article about a character merely because he's retired from a company. Should we now delete Tony Benn because the man has retired from Parliament? On the reason for keeping, it's not the prose that does it, but the fact that he won the Georgia contract from under the nose of Oracle. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. A resume in prose written by its subject. If an article is written on the company, I'd support a merge. android79 15:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep my third vote on this article! I appreciate being informed on my talk page about this vote here. I see a character of minor notability...very minor...but well, Misplaced Pages is not paper.--MONGO 16:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge to his company, or delete. He isn't notable, his company is. Stifle 16:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, nowhere to merge this. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 17:06, Jan. 17, 2006
- Delete per R. fiend. -- Dragonfiend 17:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- delete I see nothing more in this article that suggests notability than last time MNewnham 17:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Tony, (co)-founder of two vaguely notable companies. Kappa 18:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, but I'd be content if someone created the article for TomorrowNow and merged it there. Titoxd 23:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as not encyclopedic and advertising. We've had requests for the first AfD to be blanked because it's showing up in google, the notice "old afd" notice was removed from the article's talk page, the old afd altered, and some pretty spammy material was added to Software maintenance by the same anon. Based upon the article alone I'm recomending "delete", but based upon the behavior associated with it I'm suggesting "with prejudice". - brenneman 00:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- I've de-hyped the article, removing anything fluff-like that didn't have a source cited. This now look even more like a vanilla article on a guy who does business. - brenneman 01:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, this will help the AfD. I've added a link to the WSJ story. --- Charles Stewart 02:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- I've de-hyped the article, removing anything fluff-like that didn't have a source cited. This now look even more like a vanilla article on a guy who does business. - brenneman 01:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Can someone temporarily undelete Rimini Street so that we can consult its contents: I've a feeling there's relevant material there? --- Charles Stewart 02:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, I have temporarily undeleted Rimini Street. I'll be redeleting it when the AFD is over. It's now at User:R. fiend/Rimini Street. -R. fiend 03:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per R. fiend. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Ravin is qutoted in this MSNBC story on the Oracle takeover of PeopleSoft to illustrate the threat that the TomorrowNow-style of cost-cutting presents to Oracle's plans. I'd say it was clear that : It's clear that the kind of cost-cutting Ravin is involved in is considered very significant in the software business. --- Charles Stewart 20:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, cost-cutting is significant in the software business, but does that make every cost-cutter notable? We're not talking about the economics of undercutting the big guys, but abut a single person who was involved in a single example of that. Ebay has dramatically altered the entire economy of used merchandise, but does every guy who sells his old Winger singles online therefore get an article? If people are so excited about this guy why has no one written about his company? -R. fiend 21:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- Not cost-cutting per se, but a particular kind of cost-cutting, namely wooing away clients from expensive service agreements. They're interesting, because it has been widely assumed that these clients were "locked in": only PeopleSoft/Oracle/etc. service engineers had the kind of deep knowledge of and access to proprietary support that could serve as safe hands for these kinds of jobs. Seth Ravin seems to be in the fore-front of businessmen who are undoing this assumption. From a business news point of view this is very much notable; my question about encyclopedic merit would lie in whether we think this is still interesting five years from now. I tend to think only time will tell. --- Charles Stewart 21:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- "Seems to be", or "is"? There's sort of a difference. If he's really making waves then I think we'd have more information on him; a solitary WSJ article is insufficient to establish this. And if this is signifcant it's buried in the article behind all his resumecruft (better after the editing, but still...). there seems to be more speculation than fact about this guy's impact. The autobiographical guidelines are that you shouldn't write about yourself; if you really are all that someone will write about you. If this is deleted (and I think it should be but its looking like it won't) I wouldn't necessarily oppose revisiting this in a while if he really is at the forefront of some verified movement. -R. fiend 22:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- There's more than the WSJ story. There's also , , , etc. How much he's being cited because he's been cited, rather than because he really is making waves, I can't say. --- --- Charles Stewart 17:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Looking through those links (albeit briefly) it seems to back up what I've been saying: if anything is really significant here, it's TomorrowNow, not so much Ravin. That's what those articles are focusing on, Ravin is hardly mentioned in some of them. I think if some interested party were to write a decent little article on that company, we could smerge this one in there and likely appease both sides. -R. fiend 17:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- The Banktechnews article (the second) cites Ravin after he left TomorrowNow in connection with undercutting of Siebel. I don't know which way around the significance goes, but Rimini Street is in the news for the same kind of thing, and Ravin constitutes the connection. For now, isn't it easiest to put the stories in the Ravin article, and have the two companies as redirects to him? If our covbereage changes, then we can figure out what to do then. --- Charles Stewart 17:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Not cost-cutting per se, but a particular kind of cost-cutting, namely wooing away clients from expensive service agreements. They're interesting, because it has been widely assumed that these clients were "locked in": only PeopleSoft/Oracle/etc. service engineers had the kind of deep knowledge of and access to proprietary support that could serve as safe hands for these kinds of jobs. Seth Ravin seems to be in the fore-front of businessmen who are undoing this assumption. From a business news point of view this is very much notable; my question about encyclopedic merit would lie in whether we think this is still interesting five years from now. I tend to think only time will tell. --- Charles Stewart 21:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, cost-cutting is significant in the software business, but does that make every cost-cutter notable? We're not talking about the economics of undercutting the big guys, but abut a single person who was involved in a single example of that. Ebay has dramatically altered the entire economy of used merchandise, but does every guy who sells his old Winger singles online therefore get an article? If people are so excited about this guy why has no one written about his company? -R. fiend 21:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think it's just me here, I think there really is a lot of straining to find reasons to delete, here. This is a chap who headed a company that grabbed a juicy contract from Oracle, and was quoted in the WSJ. Someone says "he's left the company now." So what? Somebody says "it was the company, not the person", which I think kinda misses the point that he was the CEO, not the teaboy. We don't go around deleting articles about CEOs just because their archievments outside their companies are not significant. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Why not just include the CEO in an article on the company? That seems like the sensible thing to do. Why have two articles when one will do? -R. fiend 01:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Suits me. You want me to undelete the article? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- You can't undelete an article that hasn't been written. -R. fiend 03:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Why not just include the CEO in an article on the company? That seems like the sensible thing to do. Why have two articles when one will do? -R. fiend 01:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, the company has already been deleted, why do we want to keep the CEO if what he founded isn't notable? User:Zoe| 02:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete vanity. --Khoikhoi 00:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)