Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JProductivity

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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JProductivity[edit]

non notable company Excariver (talk) 19:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not notable? The company and especially their Protection product are very good. I think Protection is the only licensing framework of choice in the Java world. Nothing else could compare... So it's definitely important product and the company itself for the Java community. And overall, there's not too much Software Licensing offerings listed in the DRM category. Therefore just another good addition would not be bad at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.73.0.193 (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the company's products being "very good" is concerned, please read WP:ILIKEIT. It doesn't matter if they are good or bad, what matters is whether the company is notable, for instance through coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If "being good" had been a criterion, we wouldn't have had an article on Microsoft ;) A ecis^Brievenbus 23:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards delete, there's no indication that the products are any different from the loads of products on the market, and the only coverage I have been able to find is this press release on Business Wire. A ecis^Brievenbus 23:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "very good" should not matter at all. However, when talking about licensing software development companies there are very few companies. Licensing Solutions is very niche market with Macrovision being the dominant player. I would disagree that jProductivity products are no different from (as you put it) "loads of products on the market" - however this is just a metter of openion and I belive should not be a reason for deletion. Plus there is no way to indicate such info in the article without sounding impartial. Regardless if jproductivity's products are different or not different - they have niche product and competing in the tight market (i.e., licensing solution) dominated by Macrovision. As for coverages - there are few. For examples: SDTimes By David Rubinstein;JavaWorld;JavaLobby;PRNewsWire;EON BusinessWire;ThomasNet. There are a number of examples of companies "not as notable" as Microsoft that have articles about the companies on Wikipedia - for example Designers_Management_Agency (I would not want to bring more example of such). I would appritiate if you would strongly consider to reconsider your "Leaning towards delete" position. I would like to write an article about companie's flagship product "Protection! Licensing Framework" and it , of course, would not be possible without reference to the company itself. Please contact me via email if there is anything I could be of help. Regards Karra.sun (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability on Wikipedia is determined not by whether we think a subject is notable, but whether there are reliable sources which indicate that others have found it reliable. All I see are press releases. Regardless of the merits of the product, there are no independent reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I did some more research and here are the sources I was able to find which are not press-releases. Dr. Dobb's by Rick Wayne; Dr. Dobb's by Shannon Cochran; Application Development Trends By ADT Staff; Application Development Trends By Rich Seeley; Computerworld By Mark Hall; Delphi Informant Magazine By DI Stuff; Java Developer's Journal-JDJ By SYS-CON Media Staff and , as mentioned previously, SDTimes By David Rubinstein. I am giving my "best shot" if you still think that this is not enough - oh, well... One question though, when we talking about companies in a very niche market (such as jProductivity in licensing market) what level of notability WP would expect? You would agree, I hope, that niche markets are not getting as much publicity, reviews, etc. in comparison to the companies/products in the the mainstream marketplace for several reasons - one of which is "because these markets are small (niche)" and "not that much interesting to write about". To quote WP's article on Niche Markets - "...they (niche markets) are by nature small in comparison to the mainstream marketplace...". So, does this means that no company in the niche market have a chance to be written about in WP? because unless such company/product is moved into mainstream then there is almost no chance to become "notable" from WP's point-of-view. Note: this company (to my knowledge) is very much notable in licensing marketplace. Anyway, if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to send me email. Regards Karra.sun (talk) 18:34, 13 February 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.