The result was no consensus. BJ Talk 01:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The company does not meet the notability guideline for companies and organisations. It is small, privately owned, and rated as a small internet site by Alexa. The creator of the article appears to be spamming wikipedia by creating articles about the company, here, on Simple and on Spanish wikipedia. Matilda talk 22:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC) reply
In this debate, the notability of the website is being called into question. I think that if I can show that this company is the market leader in this sector, than this would no longer be an issue (just as Google and yahoo! are leaders in their sectors and thus have articles). I know that sometime in the next week, an article is being printed in a Norwegian financial magazine (for those who do not know, Norway is one of the biggest fishing/seafood exporting nations in the world) that will show FIS to be the market leader and therefore proving its notability. Since this would be an external and independent source, the validity of that would not be questioned. I shall post that on this discussion page and on the list of sources as soon as it arises. The fact that FIS has a traffic rank of 300 000 doesn’t effect the notability since this is only proportional to the market in which it is in (This figure does not take into account the fact that the Japanese FIS is on a separate domain so the figure is actually closer to 200 000). Ferrari on the world car market has no real significance (less than 1% of the total market), however on the LUXURY car market it is much more significant. This is a similar case here, on the overall view of the World Wide Web, FIS is small, but within its market its huge.
The second issue raised is that the article appears to be written like an advertisement. This is no reason for deletion since this contradicts the spirit and philosophy of Wikipedia. If an article is not up to encyclopedic standard, then it is modified and updated until it is up to that standard. Simply deleting an article because you don’t like it or understand the sector in which it talk about is a complete contradiction of the very concept of Wikipedia and the fact that it is written like an advertisement should give people encouragement to carry on improving Wikipedia. The competitors of this website are not listed and this is open for anyone to do if they think that this would add balance to this article.
In response to this accusation on "spamming" Wikipedia, this is again nonsense. The site has three languages: English, Spanish and Japanese as well as a large majority of the English users not having English as their first language. It is therefore equally significant to have articles for all three languages as well as a simplified English version since those are all of equal importance on the site. This also calls into question if we should be discussing this on the English Wikipedia site since each language has different administrators and log-ins.
If Wikipedians continue like this, Wikipedia risks becoming an organization similar to Académie française (French Academy) or the Real Academia Española (Spanish Academy). This is something for the people who take part in this debate to consider. -- Spindoctor69 ( talk) 02:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC) — Spindoctor69 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
As far as I can see there is nothing that supports FIS meeting that guideline - some yet to be published article is not significant coverage in secondary sources (note the plural). -- Matilda talk 21:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC) replyA company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject.
Spindoctor69 ( talk) 21:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC) — Spindoctor69 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
[2] [3] [4] Some other places simply list it as a source, which, of course, doesn't say too much, but is worthy of mention. [5] [6] [7] [8] Jjamison ( talk) 23:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC) reply
What Wikipedia is Not i was looking around Wikipedia and found this article: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. There is a section which is called 'Wikipedia is not a Beurocracy'. I think this section fits this article well since it seems to be a specific case. There are no internet publications which have significant coverage on this site, however I think that notability has been established since it has been used as a source by some very notable organizations. What Wikipedia says in its guidelines for a case like this is that we must 'ignore the rules for the sake of improving Wikipedia'. Having this article benefits Wikipedia despite it being short of sources. Although what Spindoctor69 says about Wikipedia turning into the French Academy is a little extreme, I think he is correct and this rule was created to combat that so I think we should abide by it. Redgator5 ( talk) 16:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)— Redgator5 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
IP user - I accidentaly made some comments while I was not logged in, my computer had logged me out. I have re-instated the comments under my name. I'm sorry about that and I hope we can assume good faith with this and move on. Spindoctor69 ( talk) 19:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. BJ Talk 01:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The company does not meet the notability guideline for companies and organisations. It is small, privately owned, and rated as a small internet site by Alexa. The creator of the article appears to be spamming wikipedia by creating articles about the company, here, on Simple and on Spanish wikipedia. Matilda talk 22:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC) reply
In this debate, the notability of the website is being called into question. I think that if I can show that this company is the market leader in this sector, than this would no longer be an issue (just as Google and yahoo! are leaders in their sectors and thus have articles). I know that sometime in the next week, an article is being printed in a Norwegian financial magazine (for those who do not know, Norway is one of the biggest fishing/seafood exporting nations in the world) that will show FIS to be the market leader and therefore proving its notability. Since this would be an external and independent source, the validity of that would not be questioned. I shall post that on this discussion page and on the list of sources as soon as it arises. The fact that FIS has a traffic rank of 300 000 doesn’t effect the notability since this is only proportional to the market in which it is in (This figure does not take into account the fact that the Japanese FIS is on a separate domain so the figure is actually closer to 200 000). Ferrari on the world car market has no real significance (less than 1% of the total market), however on the LUXURY car market it is much more significant. This is a similar case here, on the overall view of the World Wide Web, FIS is small, but within its market its huge.
The second issue raised is that the article appears to be written like an advertisement. This is no reason for deletion since this contradicts the spirit and philosophy of Wikipedia. If an article is not up to encyclopedic standard, then it is modified and updated until it is up to that standard. Simply deleting an article because you don’t like it or understand the sector in which it talk about is a complete contradiction of the very concept of Wikipedia and the fact that it is written like an advertisement should give people encouragement to carry on improving Wikipedia. The competitors of this website are not listed and this is open for anyone to do if they think that this would add balance to this article.
In response to this accusation on "spamming" Wikipedia, this is again nonsense. The site has three languages: English, Spanish and Japanese as well as a large majority of the English users not having English as their first language. It is therefore equally significant to have articles for all three languages as well as a simplified English version since those are all of equal importance on the site. This also calls into question if we should be discussing this on the English Wikipedia site since each language has different administrators and log-ins.
If Wikipedians continue like this, Wikipedia risks becoming an organization similar to Académie française (French Academy) or the Real Academia Española (Spanish Academy). This is something for the people who take part in this debate to consider. -- Spindoctor69 ( talk) 02:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC) — Spindoctor69 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
As far as I can see there is nothing that supports FIS meeting that guideline - some yet to be published article is not significant coverage in secondary sources (note the plural). -- Matilda talk 21:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC) replyA company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject.
Spindoctor69 ( talk) 21:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC) — Spindoctor69 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
[2] [3] [4] Some other places simply list it as a source, which, of course, doesn't say too much, but is worthy of mention. [5] [6] [7] [8] Jjamison ( talk) 23:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC) reply
What Wikipedia is Not i was looking around Wikipedia and found this article: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. There is a section which is called 'Wikipedia is not a Beurocracy'. I think this section fits this article well since it seems to be a specific case. There are no internet publications which have significant coverage on this site, however I think that notability has been established since it has been used as a source by some very notable organizations. What Wikipedia says in its guidelines for a case like this is that we must 'ignore the rules for the sake of improving Wikipedia'. Having this article benefits Wikipedia despite it being short of sources. Although what Spindoctor69 says about Wikipedia turning into the French Academy is a little extreme, I think he is correct and this rule was created to combat that so I think we should abide by it. Redgator5 ( talk) 16:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)— Redgator5 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
IP user - I accidentaly made some comments while I was not logged in, my computer had logged me out. I have re-instated the comments under my name. I'm sorry about that and I hope we can assume good faith with this and move on. Spindoctor69 ( talk) 19:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply