Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Areca (company)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2019 April 27.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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.

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Areca (company)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

May not be notable as per Wikipedia guidelines. No references provided although article created in 2005. Please add references if notable. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close- edit time between AFD nominations suggest this editor is not taking any research time on this wave of AFDs. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you serious, dude? That's not a reason to close a community discussion. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 08:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a reference from a reliable source, needs work, but seems notable.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only reference is a company listing in Blooberg. It brings up nothing in a news search but its WP page. AlbinoFerret 16:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The Bloomberg source is noncontributory to notability because it does not provide an in-depth analysis of the subject. The subject appears to have sparse to no deep coverage from independent reliable sources to meet WP:CORP. Mz7 (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ceradon (talk • contribs) 08:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Here^WebCite is an article from Génération NT. The article begins:
Areca Technology Corporation, fournisseur à l’échelon mondial de solutions de contrôleurs RAID interne ou externe, annonce la disponibilité de sa dernière carte ARC-1200 équipée de 2 ports SATA II et compatible avec l’interface PCIe 1x.
Here^Archive.org is an article from TweakTown. The article begins:
Areca Technology Corporation started life in 1999 and was formed by a team of storage product engineers in Taipei, Taiwan. The core of Areca is their dedicated research and development team that is responsible for Areca's success in the storage industry.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Areca Technology Corporation to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources from Cunard are just not up to it. The GNT source is about the product ARC-1200 rather than the company itself. As for the TweakTown article, text like "Around five years ago Areca's hard work and dedication propelled the company into a leading role in the storage controller market" smacks of something that has been provided by the company's marketing department and just reused without any actual analysis. I find it hard to accept that as a reliable source. And besides, although there is some spammy discussion of the company, the article is primarily about the ARC-1880 product. SpinningSpark 13:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/3807/areca_arc_1880ix_24_pci_e_x8_sata_sas_raid_controller_w_24_crucial_realssd_c300s/index.html is listed as a review from Senior Storage Editor Chris Ramseyer. Perhaps Ramseyer is enthused about the product he's reviewing and is impressed with Areca's work. I don't think this is enough to discount the article as unreliable. http://www.tweaktown.com/contact/index.html indicates there is editorial oversight.
Although both articles are about Areca Technology Corporation's products, they provide significant coverage about the company. Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says:
Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
Cunard (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — product reviews aren't significant coverage (WP:GNG) of a company; it also appears to fail WP:CORP, too. In fact, given the wording of the last-minute sources cited by Cunard, these reek of paid-to-review in the first place, and, in fact, TweakTown is listed as a blog by Google news. Speaking of Google News, check out the amazing similarity in wording between the hit for Areca's home page and the wording of the review from TweakTown. Also, even if it were a valid source—it's clearly not—a review related to a product release in no way demonstrates substantial coverage / significance of the company as required by either WP:CORP or WP:GNG, for this exact reason: it's easy to pay a handful of people to review your product, but it's much more difficult to garner significant awards and critical acclaim and/or ridicule across numerous independent sources for a company's long-term significance (and thus encyclopedic notability). --slakr^\ talk / 20:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Switched to delete. SpinningSpark and Slakr's analysis of the sources have convinced me they are not enough for the company to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 06:05, 11 January 2015 (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.