Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KE Software (2nd nomination)

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. Black Kite (talk) 09:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KE Software

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

Non-notable organization. Nothing significant than some company like over thousands in the world. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a directory for companies like this. Light2021 (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep I appreciate that as I wrote the article my view may not be valid here, but I should point out that it is a significant company because of its role in developing what has become the main electronic database for large museums and galleries around the world, and has been written up as such in a number of reliable independent secondary sources - in particular these = Tim Hart and Martin Hallett, 2011, 'Australian museums and the technology revolution', in Understanding Museums: Australian Museums and Museology, Des Griffin and Leon Paroissien (eds), National Museum of Australia ISBN 978-1-876944-92-6; Lord, B & Lord, G.D., 1997, The Manual of Museum Management, Rowman, Altamira Press, pp.72-73; The Museums Journal, Volume 106, Issues 7-12 Museums Association, 2006; and Collections: A Journal for Museum and Archives Professionals, Volume 5, AltaMira Press, 2009, pp.152-7. hence meets WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY.Garyvines (talk) 01:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO and WP:TNT - " It has been described as "...the world’s leading provider of Collections Management systems and services."" in the intro, and the cite is to a reprinted press release. Given a start like that I flatly don't trust the offline sourcing to be any good. It would need a rewrite with each and every claimed good-looking source directly verified as actually backing the claim - David Gerard (talk) 10:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about we take out the promo quote and rely in the Hart and Hallett article and the numerous albeit brief references from organisations that use the software, to show notability? It may be a specialist proprietary software, but given its extensive role in museums and galleries, and in comparison to some of the more obscure relational databases listed here, I would have thought it was an appropriate candidate to keep with a bit more editing of the article.Garyvines (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps for further comparison see Vernon Systems.Garyvines (talk) 13:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I myself had commented Delete at the first AfD, this in fact is still in and of itself an advertisement because it only focuses with what the company wants to say about itself, and the sources equally show this in that they are not convincing either. No other actions have been made to attempt actually fixing this article, and it seems it's because it cannnot be improved, especially if only existing as an advertisement. SwisterTwister talk 18:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

but the Hart and Hallett article, and the others cited above by me, are not advertising, while the large number of museums and galleries using the software is demonstrated by the numerous references from those organisations - i.e. they don't come from the company.Garyvines (talk) 01:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep Agree with Garyvines that this article meets WP:GNG and WP:Company because the company's software "has become the main electronic database for large museums and galleries around the world, and has been written up as such in a number of reliable independent secondary sources - in particular these = Tim Hart and Martin Hallett, 2011, 'Australian museums and the technology revolution', in Understanding Museums: Australian Museums and Museology, Des Griffin and Leon Paroissien (eds), National Museum of Australia ISBN 978-1-876944-92-6; Lord, B & Lord, G.D., 1997, The Manual of Museum Management, Rowman, Altamira Press, pp.72-73; The Museums Journal, Volume 106, Issues 7-12 Museums Association, 2006; and Collections: A Journal for Museum and Archives Professionals, Volume 5, AltaMira Press, 2009, pp.152-7.Mbridge3000 (talk) 19:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I said earlier, on the basis of Gary Vines' material here. Clearly documented as a leader in its field. The documentation meets the GN, and arguments that it does not amount to quibbling. If you really try hard enough, its possible to attack almost any source whatever, Ref 40 in particular isa very helpful 3rd party published source. In any case, leader in its field is indeed a better standard of suitability for a WP article than the arbitrary standard of GNG--it sayssomething about thr RW. I've rarely !voted to delete and article that shows that if the status is worldwide, and rarely if even if it is a major country. It has a little content that is a bit the promotional side, which I'm in the process of adjusting. DGG ( talk ) 17:27, 5 October 2016 (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.