Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SubRosaSoft.com Inc.: Difference between revisions
Thirdright (talk | contribs) →SubRosaSoft.com Inc.: delete |
Comment/request relist at the end of initial seven-day period |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Business|list of Business-related deletion discussions]]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small>[[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 13:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)</small> |
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Business|list of Business-related deletion discussions]]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small>[[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 13:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)</small> |
||
* '''Delete'''- Fails [[WP:N]]. Sources search only returns press releases. --[[User:Tgeairn|Tgeairn]] ([[User talk:Tgeairn|talk]]) 05:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC) |
* '''Delete'''- Fails [[WP:N]]. Sources search only returns press releases. --[[User:Tgeairn|Tgeairn]] ([[User talk:Tgeairn|talk]]) 05:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC) |
||
*'''Comment''' I'm not sure whether this article should be kept or deleted, but I request that this be relisted for another week instead of being closed after seven days. There are potential sources here which need to be examined before this discussion can be properly concluded. <p>The final paragraph of [[WP:PRODUCT]] reads, "Note that a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right. In this case, an article on the product may be appropriate, and notability of the company itself is not inherited as a result." This may be the case with SubRosaSoft.com; even if we can show that its products have been reviewed independently, the company itself needs to be the subject of coverage in secondary sources in order for [[Wikipedia:CORP#Primary criteria|the relevant guidelines]] to be met. Google searches for independent sources about the company itself are frustrating, turning out a sea of press releases. So I tried a simple search of ''[[Macworld]]''’s website for "subrosasoft," restricted to articles; [http://www.macworld.com/search/articles?q=subrosasoft this turned up 34 articles]. A search of ''Macworld UK''’s website for "subrosasoft," restricted to news results, [http://www.macworld.co.uk/search/run/?eqs=69B1B181A296039D79B9A5CFA69A018BD6B9CE169C99B386ABAD9BE896928B4E82A24803A37D9AA33C9AC2BF89981EBBC09B8DD4B434EF6D70DF94844990B8A07A9E6DBA079D4A5692C60C4B8D9E928C0664A3AB98BDB19BA8A987B9AD8851E20F82A8EA0E23CD889D049332C9B9FB turned up 14 items]. ''Macworld'' and ''Macworld UK'' are reliable, secondary sources, but I haven't analyzed any of these results to see if any provide the significant coverage needed confer notability, nor will I have the time to do so until later in the week. But I think that holding off on deletion for now – that is, until at least a couple of editors have examined these potential sources – would be prudent. [[User:A Stop at Willoughby|A Stop at Willoughby]] ([[User talk:A Stop at Willoughby|talk]]) 03:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 03:17, 22 February 2012
- SubRosaSoft.com Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete- Fails WP:N. Sources search only returns press releases. --Tgeairn (talk) 05:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not sure whether this article should be kept or deleted, but I request that this be relisted for another week instead of being closed after seven days. There are potential sources here which need to be examined before this discussion can be properly concluded.
The final paragraph of WP:PRODUCT reads, "Note that a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right. In this case, an article on the product may be appropriate, and notability of the company itself is not inherited as a result." This may be the case with SubRosaSoft.com; even if we can show that its products have been reviewed independently, the company itself needs to be the subject of coverage in secondary sources in order for the relevant guidelines to be met. Google searches for independent sources about the company itself are frustrating, turning out a sea of press releases. So I tried a simple search of Macworld’s website for "subrosasoft," restricted to articles; this turned up 34 articles. A search of Macworld UK’s website for "subrosasoft," restricted to news results, turned up 14 items. Macworld and Macworld UK are reliable, secondary sources, but I haven't analyzed any of these results to see if any provide the significant coverage needed confer notability, nor will I have the time to do so until later in the week. But I think that holding off on deletion for now – that is, until at least a couple of editors have examined these potential sources – would be prudent. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)