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.
No independent coverage. Was a business from 1980 to 2001, now a consulting brand for one of the founders. Multiple other software businesses of this name make searches difficult. Based on the article,
Maxon Computer GmbH could be a redirect target, but that article doesn't (and needn't) mention this company.
User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki,
π,
ν)
01:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment I was unable to find more in-depth coverage of the company, and I did notice there are Australian and Chinese companies with the same name.
Piecesofuk, can you please add more reliable sources about the company to this discussion? Thanks,
Heartmusic678 (
talk)
11:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Piecesofuk: Thank you. There are a great number of search results to go through, and I personally can't comb through all of them to find ones that pass
WP:SIGCOV for the company. Based on the search results you provided, I share Pavlor's concern that the products may be more notable than the company itself. (Advertisements do not warrant product notability, and product reviews must meet
WP:PRODUCTREV). If multiple reliable independent sources about the company itself do not exist, the products' notability is not enough to keep the company's page in existence. If anyone has time to pinpoint in-depth coverage of the company from reliable sources, please share what you find.
Heartmusic678 (
talk)
11:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Thank you,
Piecesofuk. Unfortunately, product reviews are irrelevant in the discussion to keep/delete this company page. The BNA does not permit open access without creating an account, and brief mentions of the company are not enough to pass
WP:SIGCOV. The purpose of meeting
WP:SIGCOV is to allow Wikipedians to write a whole article about a subject, per
WP:WHYN, and if we cannot prove there is in-depth coverage about the company (not the software) to do so, the Wikipedia article about the company has to be deleted. My vote is Delete unless
WP:SIGCOV can be proven for the company alone, not its products.
Heartmusic678 (
talk)
15:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep - there appears to be difficulty sourcing much on-line info from the 1980s, but we should consider
British Newspaper Archive per
Piecesofuk's research. There are thousands of references in Archive.org and
beyond, although it is a struggle to identify stuff that passes
WP:SIRS from there. HiSoft adverts typically contain blurb about the company, and this tends to crowd out hits on more analytical pieces. The journalistic style of the time would typically not dwell on the organisations much, despite the significance of the products, so analytical pieces would be few. These issues mean that evidence may be difficult to compile.
Chumpiht04:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep In my opinion, the profile contained in the Amiga Computing magazine coupled with the mentions of the importance of this company's products in their own specialist fields and the fact that the age of this company means we must take
WP:NEXIST into account pushes the topic company over the line.
HighKing++ 11:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
No independent coverage. Was a business from 1980 to 2001, now a consulting brand for one of the founders. Multiple other software businesses of this name make searches difficult. Based on the article,
Maxon Computer GmbH could be a redirect target, but that article doesn't (and needn't) mention this company.
User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki,
π,
ν)
01:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment I was unable to find more in-depth coverage of the company, and I did notice there are Australian and Chinese companies with the same name.
Piecesofuk, can you please add more reliable sources about the company to this discussion? Thanks,
Heartmusic678 (
talk)
11:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Piecesofuk: Thank you. There are a great number of search results to go through, and I personally can't comb through all of them to find ones that pass
WP:SIGCOV for the company. Based on the search results you provided, I share Pavlor's concern that the products may be more notable than the company itself. (Advertisements do not warrant product notability, and product reviews must meet
WP:PRODUCTREV). If multiple reliable independent sources about the company itself do not exist, the products' notability is not enough to keep the company's page in existence. If anyone has time to pinpoint in-depth coverage of the company from reliable sources, please share what you find.
Heartmusic678 (
talk)
11:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Thank you,
Piecesofuk. Unfortunately, product reviews are irrelevant in the discussion to keep/delete this company page. The BNA does not permit open access without creating an account, and brief mentions of the company are not enough to pass
WP:SIGCOV. The purpose of meeting
WP:SIGCOV is to allow Wikipedians to write a whole article about a subject, per
WP:WHYN, and if we cannot prove there is in-depth coverage about the company (not the software) to do so, the Wikipedia article about the company has to be deleted. My vote is Delete unless
WP:SIGCOV can be proven for the company alone, not its products.
Heartmusic678 (
talk)
15:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep - there appears to be difficulty sourcing much on-line info from the 1980s, but we should consider
British Newspaper Archive per
Piecesofuk's research. There are thousands of references in Archive.org and
beyond, although it is a struggle to identify stuff that passes
WP:SIRS from there. HiSoft adverts typically contain blurb about the company, and this tends to crowd out hits on more analytical pieces. The journalistic style of the time would typically not dwell on the organisations much, despite the significance of the products, so analytical pieces would be few. These issues mean that evidence may be difficult to compile.
Chumpiht04:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep In my opinion, the profile contained in the Amiga Computing magazine coupled with the mentions of the importance of this company's products in their own specialist fields and the fact that the age of this company means we must take
WP:NEXIST into account pushes the topic company over the line.
HighKing++ 11:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)reply
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.