Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faronics

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 keep. Neıl ☎ 12:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Faronics

Faronics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable software company. Dougie WII (talk) 00:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Merely existing doesn't mean that it's suitable for a Wikipedia article. -- Dougie WII (talk) 02:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Sure it does. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, of course. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia has notability guidelines beyond what merely exists. Are you trying to make a point? Ketsuekigata (talk) 04:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Those so-called "notability guidelines" are (a) substantially undefined, (b) totally arbitrary, and (c) completely irrelevant. Verifiable existence is the only meaningful criterion. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
That would be a more defensible position if you did verify the existence of organizations before claiming they exist; Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/International_Negotiation_Institute being Exhibit A.  RGTraynor  14:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails to meet WP:CORP. There hasn't been significant third-party coverage. Ketsuekigata (talk) 04:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep publications like Globe and Mail, Macworld are good, as well as information on the kind of product that has been appreciated in the software industry. Details about it being a large company with overseas bases and its product being used in K-12 schools is notable, in my opinion. Vishnava (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Kurt Weber's cocky attitude and this article's lack of verifiability. If some relevant 3rd party sources can be found, then improve the article and keep it...maybe...I feel like a tourist (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
    • comment Kurt does this all the time; I'm surprised he hasn't been banned already. That should not influence our decisions on this article. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep this company seems notable enough, but the article needs to be improved.I feel like a tourist (talk) 02:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The sources are sufficient to establish notability. And please, folks let's keep it civil. Kurt is as entitled to his opinions as the rest of us. I don't agree with him at all, but we're not here to talk about Kurt, we're here to discuss the relative notability of this article. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Reluctant Delete. The articles mentioned were briefs written about product releases with no additional reporting; even with a staff byline, those sources aren't enough to establish notability for a company that's been in the industry as long as this company says it has. The company claims notability in the educational field, so articles in related trade publications would be acceptable, but I could find none carried online about the company or its software, but if there were articles anywhere, the company would probably be promoting them. Flowanda | Talk 21:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Per Flowanda.Divinediscourse (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
ALERT per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Divinediscourse the above vote seems to be from a sockpuppet. Beeblbrox (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - maker of popular software. Monobi (talk) 03:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
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.