Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panic (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 keep - or at least no consensus for deletion. JForget 00:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Panic (company)[edit]

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

From speedy. Does not appear to be notable as it lacks second-party refs. However... there is a category Category:Panic software which has seven bluelinked articles. So I think a company that has seven products with articles might itself be notable. Hard to find refs, but "panic" is a fairly common term so this makes it hard. I do believe that the company is probably not notable, but it does deserve an AfD. Herostratus (talk) 04:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep(for now). The blue links in the category seem to have notability established, so this company should too. However, due to the name of the company, all I can find when I search for sources are a bunch of Douglas Adams references, however, I am no good at finding sources anyway. I would say keep, tag as needing sources, give a little bit for sources to be gathered, and if none can be gathered, then we'll address the AfD again at that time. --Fbifriday (talk) 05:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: Notability is inherited. Fleet Command (talk) 07:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Barely notable, but err on the side of caution and keep. ;) --OpenFuture (talk) 07:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing to comply with Verifiability rule, General Notability guideline and its advertisement nature. Also nominate and delete all the product articles of this company, as they are equally not notable and are for advertisement only. Fleet Command (talk) 07:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I believe they are notable, here are some sources: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. I'll work these into the article if the article is not deleted. Nuujinn (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2010 (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.