Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Western Telematic Inc.

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. BD2412 T 03:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Western Telematic Inc.[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)

Promo piece with likely COI editing on a non-notable company. The sources are plentiful, but most are directory listings and press release regurgitations, others 50-year-old offline ones that can't easily be verified, hence the bottom line is that even if all the promo fluff were removed, there's not much of substance left. Fails WP:GNG / WP:CORP.

This was declined at AfC twice, but moved to main space anyway, so let's see what the community says. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Genuinely nothing more to add. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 16:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to have multiple independent reliable sources. The summary sounds as though the company may be of historic interest in addition to its current work. The article mentions that one of the first products was a component for the IBM 1130 which has a fairly lengthy article on its own. Perhaps some of the sources in that extensive article will have additional information to improve this one. Also, please remember that offline sources are still perfectly valid sources, regardless of their age. You cannot dismiss offline sources as "cannot be verified", that is not Wikipedia policy. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability isn't inherited. Just because the IBM 1130 may be notable, doesn't make every component supplier to it notable. And if this company was a particularly 'important' supplier, you might expect it to get at least one mention in the (lengthy, as you say) article on the 1130.

And yes, offline sources are acceptable, but notability requires that those offline sources not just mention the subject in passing but offer significant coverage, and when you look closely, many of those sources are cited against general statements about sharing computers and printers etc., which, for all we know, may not even mention the company, let alone cover it in any depth. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My point about the IBM 1130 was merely that the Wikipedia article for that computer is long and detailed, with many sources. It would be worth looking through those sources to see if there is any useful information about this company as well, that is all that I meant. As to your second point, "for all we know" is not really a good argument about a source. Some editors have cited those sources, claiming that they support the statements made. We cannot ignore them simply because of your assertion that "for all we know" they might not support notability. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Granted, 'for all we know' may have been a poor choice of phrase, but the point is this: just because one editor claims that those sources support the article contents, surely cannot be enough, as this makes a mockery of the whole notion of verifiability — otherwise what's to stop a COI editor or hoaxer from creating anything they want, citing some obscure offline sources (real or fictitious), and making it virtually impossible for anyone to prove them wrong? Therefore surely the onus isn't on me (in this case) to disprove that claim, but for whoever is making the case for notability to support it appropriately and beyond doubt, which I really don't think has been achieved here. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OFFLINE and WP:PAPERONLY for more information. Remember that Assume Good Faith is a central tenet of Wikipedia (this really needs to be placed at the top of every AfD discussion), and so our default is to assume that the editor who cited the book did so correctly, until we have information to demonstrate otherwise. Hyperion35 (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've checked as many references as I could find and not a single one met the criteria for establishing notability. The references were either promo pieces on a product or mentions-in-passing. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "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. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:48, 4 April 2021 (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.