Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iconics

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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iconics

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

A company developing industrial automation software. Author's name suggests blatant COI. Scant evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 02:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. References are included with the article. A reference doesn't have to be primarily about the company to be valid. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Independent references are adequate and reliable. LotLE×talk 03:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Lulu. Minor, but there are independent refs. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep /* Iconics */ I say keep, refs are independent from other sources and they talk abouttechnology used within industrial automation --Timdonaldson33 (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timdonaldson33 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is essentially a PR brochure; notability is a side issue. And at any rate, references like Automation World and Treatment Plant Operator Magazine - Dedicated to Municipal Wastewater Professionals would appear to be media of limited interest and circulation. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then that would be a copyediting issue (and fixed by editing rather than deletion), not one of notability.

Nor is a limited circulation trade magazine barred from being RS. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. All spam should be deleted, whether it qualifies for speedy deletion or not. Trade publications of limited interest and circulation have circulations often no larger than a local newspaper. They cover trade related businesses and events in more minute detail than general interest publications do. This means that they cover run of the mill businesses that fall within their interest. And they frequently repeat information given to them by business insiders with minimal critical attention. So no, trade coverage does not necessarily result in notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article is in accordance with Wikipedia's policy for NPOV (Neutral Point of View). The entry is educational, providing an accurate discription of what the firm ICONICS does. If author(s) are motivated by profit, he/she could be more immoderate. Other vendors in the Industrial Automation space have similar Wikipedia entries; knowledge of ICONICS history, products and services is relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.15.133.9 (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep organizations are notable if 1 - the scope of their activities is national or international (verifiable list of global projects included in entry) in scale, and if 2 - information about the organization and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources (see links to Microsoft and publications). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.15.133.9 (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2010 (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.