Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MEGA International

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MEGA International[edit]

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

Independent sources have been recently added for a claim that MEGA is "a leader" in their sector. They're paywalled so I can't check them, but it doesn't strike me as sufficient to meet WP:NCORP when the rest of the article is unsourced and looks like it came from a MEGA press release.

An IP editor contested the prod and another contested the contestion. I will notify both of this AfD. Kilopi (talk) 23:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kilopi - Thanks for the comments. Regarding the paywalled content, typically this type of information is sold at a high cost, although I admit that it's easily found through a Google search. This makes it difficult to add this copyrighted document to the cited sources (specifically the Gartner MQs and the Forrester Waves). The way the sentence is designed meets specific guidelines from the aforementioned analyst firms - MEGA cannot say "the leader", but rather "a leader". Technically, adding up the scores from both analyst groups results in a figure in favor of MEGA that surpasses all other vendors in those reports. Because the mention of analyst reports in based on opinion by those firms, I will remove any reference of them or MEGA’s positioning.

For the issue regarding "reads like a press release", I will edit the Products & Services section to be more precise to include specific product names (not high-level categories).

Here’s unique/factual information that supports the removal of the deletion notice: In 1986, MEGA developed the first European enterprise modeling software for Windows. MEGA International was officially formed in 1991 by current CEO Lucio de Risi. It was created as a spin-off from Cap Gemini. The company has its headquarters in Paris, with satellite offices in other parts of Europe, North America, and Asia;

Based on the information I have provided here, do you think that it will be appropriate to remove the deletion notice? Thanks for your feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.25.215.173 (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC) — 23.25.215.173 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

No, that's not sufficient. The problem is that we don't decide WP:notability, which is all we care about at AfD, based on WP:FACTORS such as rank, e.g., being first. To establish notability requires not just that the subject seem notable, but that others not connected to the subject have actually taken note and they did it in reliable sources. Routine coverage of press releases doesn't count. A good rule of thumb is that it takes two good sources, e.g., two magazine articles about the subject to establish notability. Hope this helps. Msnicki (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the source for the 'first' claim? Some of Wikipedia's readers and editors will assume the worst when a promotional claim is presented without one. Was it hailed as a significant development by respected, widely read journalists? Or did MEGA's communications department review a list that included dozens of American, Asian, or UNIX based software from the 1970s and work out what adjectives were needed to move them up to first? Or did someone just make it up hoping nobody would care enough to question it? Kilopi (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish WP:notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Having searched, e.g., 1, I just don't believe they exist. Wikipedia is not for WP:PROMOTION. Msnicki (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the lack of notability masked with a specially crafted language. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. All hits at Google News archive are about the similarly named commercial bank in Taiwan. --MelanieN (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2012 (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.