Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer Aid, 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. Cirt (talk) 08:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Aid, Inc.[edit]

Non-notable company. Only primary references (company-paid listings in various business directories). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 106 hits on Google News. Did the nominator follow WP:BEFORE and make a good faith effort to confirm that no significant coverage of the topic in reliable sources exists? the skomorokh 14:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As a matter of fact, I DID perform a Google search on the company prior to nomination. I found a number of inclusions in paid business directories, but nothing more. The link you provided is to the Russian Google servers, which I can't access from my PC, but the US Google servers list only 1 hit on the same search: a press release about a local trade show. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Try "all dates"; notability does not expire monthly ;) the skomorokh 15:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - So, they are apparently quite litigious, and fond of publishing press releases. I still don't see any substantive coverage here. But then, that's just my opinion. That's why we have an AfD process, so other editors can assess the article as well. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A "multinational computer technology and consulting corporation" that fits the profile. Much of the coverage in Google News comes out of legal cases that don't involve this business directly: apparently a case involving this company was a lead case for the principle that disclosure of your Social Security number does not constitute a per se violation of your right to privacy. This makes its name will appear in dozens of unrelated opinions. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nomination. Google hits do not amount to "significant coverage" per WP:N. ukexpat (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nor is anyone suggesting that they do. the skomorokh 19:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment It seemed that YOU were suggesting that they do when you used them to argue against the AfD nomination. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I ran through some of the archive news sources. There is not a heck of a lot. I wouldn't necessarily categorize them as being litigious. There was one suit in 1996 against HP alleging theft of trade secrets. I couldn't find any resolution. But based on that I am guessing that the case was either settled or at the very least, set no significant legal precedent. Couple of small lists from the Central PA Business Journal. As of 2006, they had a total of 1,300 and made some list of large tech companies in Central PA.[1], so its not a back room shop, but its not IBM either. They get a fair number of local gov't contracts for what I can see but nothing that indicates that they are a notable player in the IT biz. As a side note, this is a potential conflict of interest as well. There is a John A. Russo who is an executive at the firm.[2] which may be the creator User:Russojar. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare) _]} 18:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Cannot locate any suitable references or coverage outside of directory listings. A number of references used in the article were fluff at best (ie, had nothing to do with subject article), and were perhaps used to avoid the article being tagged as lacking references. Alphageekpa (talk) 20:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 17:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 17:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2008 (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.