Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CIGNEX Datamatics

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 09:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CIGNEX Datamatics[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:NCORP. ∯WBG^converse 16:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 16:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 16:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 16:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Old article. I don't really have time to dig out more information about this company. But it does exist. Should not be deleted as there are many unknown celebrities and smaller companies which are included in Wikipedia. Here is some data I just found on popular sites - Crunchbase https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/cignex-technologies, and Business Standard - https://www.business-standard.com/company/datamatics-glob-21187/annual-report/director-report --Tech editor007 (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tech editor007, thank you for your comment! Unfortunately none of these really work as reasons to keep the article. As per Wikipedia's guidelines on notability for corporations, both of the sources you give are considered "trivial coverage" and cannot be used for the purpose of establishing notability. Age of an article is not used as a reason to either keep or delete; and other "unknown celebrities and smaller companies" having articles is also not a reason since we must evaluate on a case-by-case basis. If you find an article covering something that isn't notable per Wikipedia's guidelines, then perhaps it too is a candidate for deletion. –Erakura^(talk) 22:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Practically all coverage I can find, and nearly all of the existing article references, are either trivial per WP:NCORP or the company's own marketing literature and press releases. –Erakura^(talk) 21:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we merge this article with an article about the company's parent company, Datamatics?--Tech editor007 (talk) 13:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That could feasibly be done; however, Datamatics itself appears to have a number of subsidiaries just like this one, so the section would be pretty short. I also think at this time that merging it into Datamatics may be a waste of effort; it appears that CIGNEX Datamatics is being acquired by Relevance Lab, another company which itself doesn't have an article and for which I'm having some difficulty in establishing notability. That said, all this is my personal take on the situation, so perhaps others will chime in with their thoughts. –Erakura^(talk) 20:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:26, 11 January 2020 (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.