Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Macroscop IP camera software
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was: Keep (withdrawn). (non-admin closure) FalconK (talk) 08:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
This stale draft doesn't meet the notability criteria of WP:ORG. The company has gotten some investment, went to some trade shows, made a few sales, and got put on a couple lists. I think the mentions are essentially incidental, and this article has little to no hope of expansion. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 03:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep 2 months is hardly stale. Even WP:G13 takes 6 months to kick in. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- It's not so much that it's stale, as that it's unlikely to ever work out as an article. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 03:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for the comments. I've added some lines on the technology essence (which is unique for the market and breakthrough comparing to the current companies in the section). These are the major events in the video surveillance industry, which represent its importance and market-readiness. As I got from the rules, the president award for innovation is quite notable. Please, advice me on the improvements as I am really puzzled now. HelenMacroscop (talk) 10:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HelenMacroscop (talk • contribs) 10:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Merely winning awards doesn't generally imply notability, though often the coverage and interest those awards generate might. The WP:GNG discusses the need for significant coverage in multiple sources that are, among other things, independent and reliable. Adding some such sources that go beyond the non-trivial mentions noted in WP:ORG, even if they are not English-language sources, would establish notability. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 11:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for the comments. I've added some lines on the technology essence (which is unique for the market and breakthrough comparing to the current companies in the section). These are the major events in the video surveillance industry, which represent its importance and market-readiness. As I got from the rules, the president award for innovation is quite notable. Please, advice me on the improvements as I am really puzzled now. HelenMacroscop (talk) 10:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HelenMacroscop (talk • contribs) 10:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- It's not so much that it's stale, as that it's unlikely to ever work out as an article. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 03:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - The general notability guideline doesn't apply to drafts (Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 58#RfC: Does WP:N apply to drafts in userspace or draftspace.3F). While there is no set time limit for drafting (Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 130#Wikipedia:Proposed draftspace deletion), two months certainly isn't long enough "stale".— Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.