Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infragistics
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Infragistics (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)
References do not meet WP:ORGCRIT. My WP:BEFORE search didn't find anything better. CNMall41 (talk) 02:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 02:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 02:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Easily meets WP:GNG with the supplied sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Which sources in particular would meet WP:ORGCRIT?--CNMall41 (talk) 03:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- I said nothing about ORGCRIT, so mu. GNG, on the other hand, states if "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article", and it has a lot of sources that give sufficient weight to the existence of an article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- I understand you wrote GNG, but ORGCRIT says in particular "the guideline establishes generally higher requirements for sources that are used to establish notability than for sources that are allowed as acceptable references within an article." Companies have been given higher standards, including with the strengthening of WP:NCORP a few years back. So while the company may be mentioned in many articles, these are brief mentions, general announcements, and references closely associated with the company (such as press releases) which would not satisfy the guideline in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- That's wonderful. It's not an issue though because if a subject meets the general notability guideline, every other guideline is moot. You understand that, right? And while they're brief mentions, there are a sufficient number of them that we have an over significant coverage of the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Wow, Civil much? If you don't like my opinion I understand but stick to content. I'd expect better from an experienced editor but maybe not. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Don't find GNG met by barely more than mentions in pretty low-level sources. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)