Jump to content

Talk:PearC

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 2010

[edit]

This article has been tagged for notability since December. If there are no more sources available it might not meet WP:CORP or WP:N. Let's take a week to see what improvements we can make.   Will Beback  talk  06:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's an awful lot of news sources on this brand [1], as recently as last month[2]. It's clearly notable, just needs someone to put in some work. I've started. --Insider201283 (talk) 11:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I have pointed out before RussianMac had a similar number of references] aka Bizon Computers and it didn't meet notability guidelines. I should mention Insider201283's broad search in Google News brought up ridiculous things such as a Jun 12, 1877 article out of the Timaru Herald and a Feb 5, 1877 article from the Chicago Tribune. Clearly those articles have nothing to do with the PearC and Apple in question and only have the names in them. If you narrow the search to the proper time period (2000+) you start to see other problems. For instance what is supposed to be a Jul 24, 2005 MEGANET article turns out to be in reality a 19.02.2009 article. Similar date issues come with "PearC Starts Selling Mac Clones in Germany" by PC Magazine which the Google news search above claims is from Jan 22, 2010 but when you go to it you find out it is actually from 02.09.09 ie 11 months earlier than what Google news claims it is. A supposed Feb 20, 2010 PC World "German Company Sells Mac Clones in Europe" link turns out to be in reality from February 06, 2009 and the list goes on
Google news like Google scholar I am sad to say is a joke--it can't even report the dates of what it finds right.
As for the Macwelt article, first it is simply a benchmark article clearly aimed on trying to cash on the idea Apple was planning to put out a new MacPro in March; it gives Macwelt something local to talk about and PearC is able to show the German people they haven't fallen off the face of the Earth. Second, other then benchmark articles and an end of the year recap (which had refer back all the way back to Feb 2009 for what it did have) even Macwelt doesn't have that much to say about PearC. Finally, we are back to WP:CORP. "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it." The only reason PearC is on anyone's radar is they make Apple clones that they appear to sale only in Germany and there was attention brought to them as a result of the whole Psystar suit. Contrast that with Franklin Electronic Publishers or Psystar who did far more more than simply make clones of Apple computers.
Per WP:SBST "Notability is not temporary" there is little here. PearC got a lot of notice around Feb-March 2009 but aside for the occasional blip they have as far as the general press goes fallen off the planet. Franklin Electronic Publishers and Psystar had far more media coverage and even have legal cases attached to them.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bruce, google news (and scholar) isn't a source, it's a tool for finding sources. Many sources it throws up will indeed be rubbish. Doesn't mean they all are. Anyway, a selection of clearly RS sources so far found -
And that's just articles wholly devoted to PearC - it also gets regular mentions in other articles talking about clone companies in general. So we have multiple independent RS sources in multiple countries. I can't see the problem? If you're still in doubt try posting it to Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard --Insider201283 (talk) 10:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS I think your comments about Germans was offensive and unnecessary. You have already suggested elsewhere that foreign language sources shouldn't be considered as contributing to notability, so you're personal views are apparent - however Wikipedia isn't the place to express them. --Insider201283 (talk) 10:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(remove indent)Insider201283, the quality of some of these sources is a joke. Holwerda admits in "PearC Mac Cloner Expands to France, The Netherlands, Belgium" that he had been "informed via email" "that hit my inbox at 2:22 AM" and other than one very poorly worded and conflicting article called "The PC with Mac OS X Reaches Benelux" no one else seems to even know this. Furthermore no mention of this major event or any reaction by Apple is ever made again. With these standards Nigerian spam email would be reliable!

Never mind that Apple revealed the presence of DMCA methods it used November 27, 2008 bringing the issue of the EU equivalent of the Copyright Directive up and yet no mention of the Copyright Directive issue in any article after that date ever appears. All the articles do talk about is the much weaker EULA which was redundant.

Your "Mac Cloner PearC Flouting Apple's EULA in E.U.?" makes the totally insane statement "Psystar, run by HyperMegaNet, based in Wolfsburg, Germany, currently ships to 23 destinations including the UK via delivery firm DHL." WHAT?!? Since when was Psystar run by HyperMegaNet and if they are then they DO come under the DMCA and as Psystar have already got their clocks cleaned. Never mind the piece is essentially an interview so its qualifications under WP:CORP iffy at best.

The выпустили клоны компьютеров aka Russians released the Mac clones article deals only with RussianMac aka Bizon Computers Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bizon_Computers ''''''which was already deleted for non-notability!!!''''' If that article wasn't enough to save the Bizon Computers why do you think it is going to help this article now? Especially when it at best only tangentially mentions PearC and therefore doesn't meet the WP:CORP requirement.

The remainder I have already addressed above; at best PearC was a flash in the pan around the Feb-March 2009 window cashing in on the notability of the whole Apple vs Psystar suit. Other companies on the MacClone bandwagon around this same time who were so unnotable they couldn't even get articles started were MacIntelligent (UK), OpeniMac (Argentina), and Quo Computing (California, USA). They have faded back into a similar obscurity as PearC has and for much the same reason--once the February 5, 2009 ruling that opened up the EULA issue again got replaced by claims of withholding financial information in April followed in May by an announcement of Chapter 11 bankruptcy the issue that brought these companies notoriety in the first place was effectively gone.

Also my comment regarding the German people was in reference to the homeboy doing well articles you get in publications from time to time. Take the Fountain Theater in Mesilla, NM that is connected to the Mesilla Valley Film Society for example. I could produce dozens of local articles on the place but that would not establish its notability for Wikipedia because they are local. Outside of a handful of travel literature on the place I doubt many people outside the Las Cruces-Mesilla area have even heard of what is the oldest movie house in New Mexico which has been in operation as such since it was built in 1905. As far as Wikipedia notability is concerned this is not enough and the same is true of PearC or Quo Computing. Go back to Quo Computing for a moment and realize that there is a company that as far as we know is still making Mac Clones in the very same state as Apple and yet nobody could find enough to even start a good wikipedia article on them.

Other than being a Mac cloner what notoriety does PearC have outside of Germany? I mean we don't even have an actual article on Zeppelin Luftschifftechnik as a company but rather on their Zeppelin NT project and their connection to the Luftschiffbau Zeppelin is totally missing.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Improving the article

[edit]

Ok, since we have decided PearC is notable how do we improve the article? Some of the references like the PCWorld one above have clear problems--unless you want claim PearC and Psystar are run by the same people. Seriously, what have they done recently other than have new computers benchmarked?--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If no improvements are made to the article by the beginning September I will again call for the deletion of this article; if you can't even find reliable sources to improve the article it can't be that notable.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:PearC&oldid=1204563274"