Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infragistics

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 09:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infragistics[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)

References do not meet WP:ORGCRIT. My WP:BEFORE search didn't find anything better. CNMall41 (talk) 02:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 02:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 02:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily meets WP:GNG with the supplied sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources in particular would meet WP:ORGCRIT?--CNMall41 (talk) 03:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I said nothing about ORGCRIT, so mu. GNG, on the other hand, states if "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article", and it has a lot of sources that give sufficient weight to the existence of an article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you wrote GNG, but ORGCRIT says in particular "the guideline establishes generally higher requirements for sources that are used to establish notability than for sources that are allowed as acceptable references within an article." Companies have been given higher standards, including with the strengthening of WP:NCORP a few years back. So while the company may be mentioned in many articles, these are brief mentions, general announcements, and references closely associated with the company (such as press releases) which would not satisfy the guideline in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's wonderful. It's not an issue though because if a subject meets the general notability guideline, every other guideline is moot. You understand that, right? And while they're brief mentions, there are a sufficient number of them that we have an over significant coverage of the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Civil much? If you don't like my opinion I understand but stick to content. I'd expect better from an experienced editor but maybe not. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What are you on about? I made no commentary on you, but I did ask you a question. The issue at hand is whether one notability criteria is enough or if your preferred criteria must be met. Someone below claims it does not meet GNG, that's better than claiming that ORGCRIT must be met and GNG is not valid. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Intent of my comment is that if ORGCRIT is not met then GNG is not met, former being the measure of the latter. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. GNG is the generic guideline but many subject topics have specific guidelines to provide additional explanations/context in applying the GNG guidelines. For example, the guidelines for topics/organizations is WP:NCORP. It is *impossible* for an article to somehow pass GNG and to then fail NCORP - this is usually because of an incorrect/incomplete application/understanding of the relevant guidelines. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Don't find GNG met by barely more than mentions in pretty low-level sources. Some feel like churnalism. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment on WP:ORGCRIT discussion above. Seems to be a welcome refinement to WP:GNG. Don't want spam pushed in by passing a false veneer of meeting GNG. ORGCRIT requires deeper examination. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal^(T) 18:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As pointed out above in relation to notability, GNG states that a topic which "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is deemed notable. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage (same as GNG) with in-depth information on the company (not just a brief description or mention) and (this next bit is really important!) containing "Independent Content". This is where NCORP clarifies what is required for coverage to be deemed "independent of the subject". As defined by WP:ORGIND, "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Looking at the sources in the article itself, most are mentions-in-passing that contain no information whatsoever on the company. For example, The four articles from i-programmer.info contain no information on the company, all fail WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV. Similarly, the articles from Visual Studio Magazine, Redmond Developer, from Dr.Dobbs and for the 2008 Virtualization Conference and Expo all fail for the same reasons. The articles from SD Times, The Register, ADTMag, RCP Mag and Sentinel are based on company announcements and/or rely entirely on information provided by the company or connected sources, fail WP:ORGIND. Finally, the inclusion in the "Ultimate e-Commerce Resource Portal" appears to be reliant entirely on information provided by the company - certainly there is no mention of an attributed independent author and the language is peppered with peacock terms which also reappear (e.g. same company description) in other articles/places. All in all, I am unable to locate any articles that meet the criteria, therefore topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:30, 3 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.