Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MRI Software

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 no consensus. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MRI Software

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

Current article does not demonstrate that this company meets WP:CORP or WP:GNG and it has been tagged as such for awhile. PROD was contested awhile back. Recommend either improving the article in the next 7 days, if someone is willing to take the time to update it but can't do it in the next week, userfication until the article is improved, or "soft deletion" without prejudice if a properly-sourced article that clearly indicates that the company meets Wikipedia's notability criteria is created. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 19:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 19:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article has been updated with 2013 information as of December 21, 2013. Recommendation is to keep the article as it has been updated several times over the last few months. References links are valid from corporate websites as well as outside sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Softwareguy88 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One of the awards was a very local award given to 99 businesses in Northeast Ohio. The other two awards cited press releases, which are not reliable sources. These two awards appear to be "industry awards" not generally known to the "outsider" public. As such, they contribute little if any to notability. Of course, even to the extent that they do demonstrate notability, a reliable, independent source is still needed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Links have been updated to the industry websites that reference the awards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Softwareguy88 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The newly-added references are primary sources, which is fine for demonstrating the fact that the awards were given but, absent some indication that these awards are significant, they have limited utility in demonstrating that the entity meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. I have expanded the citations so it is clearer who is giving these awards. Both entities issuing the awards share common ownership. It is unclear if the entities have an "arms-length" relationship with each other or if they should be treated as a single entity recognizing this company in different ways. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdw ^talk 20:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The problem with the company name is that it's generic and searching for MRI Software returns links that discuss magnetic resonance imaging software. Five google pages in, I found only a few links directly related to the company and none of them confer notability on the subject. This unfortunately forces us to rely on the references in the article, which also don't show the notability of the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Comment Walter claim above is completely false. If you do a search for MRI Software on any major browser (Google, Yahoo, Bing) the entire first page is related to MRI Software, the property management company. If you just search for a term like MRI, sure the magnetic resonance comes up. The claim above is completely false. In fact, nothing related to medical MRI shows up until page 4 of a Google search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Softwareguy88 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 1 January 2014 @Softwareguy: I replaced "keep" with "comment" because you already expressed your desire to keep this article earlier in the discussion. Only one "keep" or "delete" or similar per person per discussion, please. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, it's not completely false. I did a search for MRI Software in Google, which is a search engine, not a browser. The entire first page contained 10 links. First link was MRI Software | Property Management Software and Investment. Second was Wikipedia. Rounding out that page: "MRI Software LLC | LinkedIn", "MRI Residential Management Software", "Metro Property Services Selects MRI Software's Commercial", "MRI Software - Solon, Ohio - Corporate Office | Facebook", "MRI Software LLC: Private Company Information - Businessweek" And the further I dig the more hits I got like "Measurement of brain volume using MRI: software, techniques". None of the ones related to the subject establish notability. The others are just problems. In short, as I stated above, I found only a few links directly related to the company and none of them confer notability on the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is unclear what significance the listed awards have with respect to demonstrating that the subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. As a comparison from another industry, local television-news anchors whose strongest "claim to fame" is having won a "state Emmy Award" for television news journalism are generally not considered notable merely because of winning that award, as winning such an award neither generates sufficient additional significant coverage to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines nor is it generally only given to people who have already met Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Contrast this with the national Emmy Awards which in most cases both increase the amount of significant coverage for the award-winners and (by coincidence) are typically awarded to people who have already received enough coverage to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:02, 1 January 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, SarahStierch (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My rule of thumb on awards is that they are to be considered significant if the awards themselves have notability. On the other hand I've never actually put this to the test - but if an award is notable enough to be considered a reliable source and presents a justification and several paragraphs about the award nominees, then an award nomination can be a reliable source even if the subject didn't win the award. These awards appear not to have their own pages, so I can't by my rule of thumb treat them as reliable - and therefore have to discount them. (There are plenty of awards that really aren't notable or reliable). Neonchameleon (talk) 18:50, 5 January 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, Guerillero | My Talk 05:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a tough one for me. I feel that notability of the award depends on the industry. The example above about the "Emmy Awards" is a hard one to use, since everyone is familiar with that specific award. In looking at the award mention above, it appears to be a legit award and deserves recognition for that company. However, since I am unfamiliar with that industry, it's hard for me to judge the relevance. I get the sense that it is significant in that industry, thus should be considered in this case BroncosfanDRC (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2014 (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.