Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opencola (company)

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. Sandstein 07:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Opencola (company)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable subsidiary, consider merging if there is any material that is notable though. Isingness (talk) 06:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of the references in the article, 3 are (or were) to company sites, two are to a blog, two are 404. This is not a great start. Searching for better references discloses a company directory or two (e.g., Pitchbook) and a bunch of false positives. The only actual notice I find is stuff like this blog post from 13 years ago wondering where opencola went and even then, the author is speaking of opencola -- the promotional soft drink that none of its drinkers knew was connected to a software company. This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP by any reasonable standard. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Eggishorn substantial analysis indicating sufficient coverage in eliable sources to pass WP:CORPDEPTH, a fundamental criterion. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 15:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Not a notable subsidiary" is not a valid statement, nor does it apply. Open Cola was not founded as a subsidiary, and no such claim is made in the article. Age of references is not relevant to defunct companies. In addition, Cory Doctorow is a notable author, nuf said. Also, any 404'd references are trivially fixed by using the Internet archive! Which I trivially did(You know, web.archive.org). This is easy, trivial, non-lazy lookup work. Please, before you just lazily join the deletionist echo chamber and yell "Delete", prove to me that you are not LAZY! Do some trivial, rewarding work! Lexein (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lexein:, "Not a notable {insert any noun here}" is a valid deletion reason for any AfD discussion. The notability of subject is always the most basic criterion of deletion discussions, whether that notability is assessed against the General notability guideline or the applicable one of these subject notability guidelines. OpenCola's founding is immaterial - it was bought out by another company and therefore became (at least for a short time) a subsidiary. Cory Doctorow's notability is also immaterial, as notability is not inherited, so no, that's not enough said. The point about the 404 sites is that those were the company's own websites -- if they can't be bothered to provide evidence of their own existence, it speaks very poorly to the question of why anyone else should care about it. Lastly, before you engage in personal attacks over other editors's efforts, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the standards that apply to deletion discussions and notability. No-one is obliged to prove anything to you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and possibly redirect to OpenText afterwards). As described above, in no way is WP:CORPDEPTH met here. A few mentions in minor sources about a technology they created does not provide sufficient notability for the company itself. Black Kite (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2018 (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.