Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technical Communities

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. Vanamonde (talk) 10:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Technical Communities

[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)

I've done a fairly thorough analysis of available sources, and on balance, I don't think there's enough coverage of this company for it to meet WP:NCORP. There are two reasonably lengthy sources (noted below), but that's all I could find. Given the extreme narrowness of their audience, I feel like WP:AUD is important here: "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary" (bold for emphasis). I was not able to find any mainstream sources. On the whole I don't think there's enough to sustain a claim of notability.

Analysis of sources in article

Federal Times: Permanent dead link, no context or title given so can't search for the article another way
Inc. 5000 1: Business listing
Washington Technology Magazine 1: Trivial mention
Homeland Security Today 1: [1] reasonable, but a very narrow audience
Washington Business Journal 1: Dead link, but based on the date could be [2] or [3], both of which mention Tech Comm but are paywalled so I can't assess depth
Federal News: Dead and nothing in the actual site's archives so can't find it to assess depth
WA Business Journal 2: Paywalled, can't assess depth, but from title is about multiple companies
Washington Technology Magazine 1: Written by the company president, not independent
Potomac Executive Biz: permanent dead link, can't find an active website for this, unknown if its an organization or a periodical or what
Washington Technology Magazine 3: Fairly deep, but aimed at a truly narrow audience - the magazine provides "competitive intelligence for executives providing contract services to the government market"
Homeland Security Today 2: permanent dead link, the only substantial article on HST was noted above so not sure what this would have been
Military & Aerospace Electronics: Doesn't mention company at all
Federal Times Top 250 GSA Vendors: Business listing
Inc. 5000 2: Business listing again

♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 06:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 06:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 06:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 06:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 01:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 12:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per analysis above. I have never found anything worthwhile in bizjournal sources (and they are way too narrow for WP:AUD) and even the most in depth sources don't have much really, if you take out everything that is a quote/paraphrase of a quote - they fail being independent as they don't seem to have "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject". Nothing to indicate more coverage than every business receives.Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: delete fails WP:NCORP & WP:PROMO. Corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the analysis above, references fails the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:54, 17 August 2018 (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.