Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KYE Systems Corp.

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KYE Systems Corp.[edit]

KYE Systems Corp. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable company, relies too much on primary sources, list is not good, most of article is about Genius, not KYE Systems Corp., and I think this is enough for deletion. Creeperparty568 ~ Cool Guy (talk) 03:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 07:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 07:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 07:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How can a company with a "sales revenue of $353 million in 2005" not be notable? "most of article is about Genius, not KYE Systems Corp." As there isn't a separate article for Genius, perhaps WP:RM is the answer. Timmyshin (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just having a third of a billion revenue does not alone grant notability, but this company has been so large for very long (albeit in an unsexy business, and not in the USA). The article does need work to be more encyclopedic, instead just a list of promotional bullets. For example, I fairly quickly found a controversy from its days doing manufacturing for Microsoft: http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/2010/04/13/labor-group-chinese-teens-like-prisoners-in-microsoft-tech-factory/ There is a stand-alone article on Mouse Systems which has historical value, acquired by KYE 27 years ago. It also does seem that the original name for this article was Genius (company) moved here in 2010. W Nowicki (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- too spammy to consider worth keeping. The content belongs on the company web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the two comments, one of which confirms this current article is unacceptable, simply ascertain the company must be notable but there's nothing genuine for satisfying our policies, this article is complete advertising complete with the blatant sections and PR sources alone. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep(Updated below) The is a large company and genius is one unit of it. They have lots of sub-units and a couple of them were covered in NYTimes for labour exploitation issues. I can work a bit on this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete On Second thoughts. I spend some time today trying to find reliable secondary sources. Surprisingly there were like none (and I have no idea why). While this company might be a large corporation, if there are no third party sources, it is difficult to write an NPOV article per WP:WHYN. Accordingly, I think I will go with a TNT delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm starting to see a number of articles with "Delete" comments stating that the article is "too promotional for Wikipedia". That is *not* a reason to delete an article. The only question we need consider is whether the topic is noteworthy and meets GNG. There are far too many articles with this comment and it is due to a misunderstanding of policy and a misinterpretation of same. Obvious promotional content should be removed - and that's what the policy WP:NOT is about. -- HighKing++ 22:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The current article is terrible but the topic is notable and is not made any easier by the fact that one of KYE's companies is probably better known as a brand that the parent - that being the "Genius" and the Mouse Systems Corp. brand (which has its own article). Also there is every possibility that other published sources exist in other languages. Nonetheless, there are sufficient independent third party sources just for KYE that get it over the GNG line
  • The problem here is not that the company is a small company - it is that there are hardly any reliable secondary third-party sources to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. I am aware that the company makes computer peripherals. However, the only coverage about it seems to be solely about the Microsoft scandal and that too a very brief mention (you can see that every source above only talks about this one incident and that too it is mostly about Microsoft, with a passing mention of KYE). There is literally nothing else available. The reviews about the mice are in websites which we consider unreliable sources and do not contain any information about the company. This falls far short of WP:CORPDEPTH. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. The coverage in the links to the books I provided meet the criteria set out in WP:RS and they are as much about KYE Systems involvement as they are about Microsoft and they are more than a passing reference.
  • I also disagree with your statement which we consider unreliable sources. I am very much aware of the criteria (both policy and guidelines) and both ComputerShopper and IXBTlabs are reliable and independent third party. Can you please provide another AfD where these websites were considered unreliable? The reviews demonstrate that the products are known and reliable.
  • Finally, I reiterate that the sole question being asked at AfD is whether a topic is notable. You appear to concede that the topic is notable, albeit that sources are hard to come by (in English with the standard alphabet and online). On the balance of probabilities, there are more sources available in other languages and in other alphabets. On the balance of probabilities, given the age of the company and its pre-internet existence, there are sources available that are not online. Finally, given the sources I've already provided above with minimal effort, while the article is poorly written and the sources are barely sufficient to establish notability, I believe it meets the criteria. -- HighKing++ 11:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can see my analysis of the book sources. None of that meets the indepth coverage required in WP:CORPDEPTH.
  • However for IXBTlabs I do not see any indication of editorial control. As for ComputerShopper, yes, the review seems to be done by a staff editor. However, I do not see any indepth coverage about the company here.
  • Notability is not the sole thing to debate at AFD - we have deleted articles for multiple reasons - promotional content, blp reasons, not enough sources. Notability is not the only reason for deletion. And the essential thing about notability that I use is WP:WHYN. If there are not enough reliable secondary sources talking about the subject, we should not have an article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Analysis of Book sources
  • Gay, Kathlyn. Living Green: The Ultimate Teen Guide. Scarecrow Press. ISBN 9780810877016. Brief mention of KYE 1-2 sentences Literally nothing about the company except 1 sentence that Microsoft outsourced production
  • Gay, Kathlyn. American Dissidents: An Encyclopedia of Activists, Subversives, and Prisoners of Conscience. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 9781598847642. Brief mention of KYE itself Same as above (and it is about the same incident) I get no information except that KYE manufactures products for microsoft
  • Khan, S.; Amann, W. World Humanism: Cross-cultural Perspectives on Ethical Practices in Organizations. Springer. ISBN 9781137378491. One sentence coverage That's all.
None of the above is significant coverage which can be used for the purposes of WP:CORPDEPTH. Note that notability cannot be inherited from association with another company or event. Over here, the kind of coverage is the WP:NOTNEWS kind -essentially the only coverage available is related to the single incident. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:21, 30 January 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/KYE_Systems_Corp.&oldid=1143884125"