Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kerio Technologies (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. No consensus for a particular action has been established in this discussion. Discussion regarding the article, such as merges, which have been occurring on the article's talk page, can continue there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kerio Technologies

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

Per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), this company and its products do not have the required depth of coverage to be notable. Wikipedia is not a free advertising site for unremarkable commercial organisations. Not to put to fine a point on it, Kerio, the orphaned baby elephant whose mother was killed by poachers has more & higher rated independent coverage than does this company. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with non. Non-notable small company, no independent references given nor found. Fails WP:CORP. MB 22:17, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @MB: How about the sources provided in the previous nomination for deletion linked to from the top of this page? And the one before that (there were apparently two previous tries to delete this article)? Ottawahitech (talk) 12:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I could not find evidence of notability or significance; I was able to find minor mentions in trade press and a lot of self-promotion but nothing that would amount to WP:CORPDEPTH. Given the on-going (potential) COI issues this page & the walled garden of product pages (see COIN entry, deletion is the way to go. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - the company itself doesn't seem very notable, the products they sell seem to be marginally notable. I do think the product pages should be merged into the company page, which might just make it work keeping. Shritwod (talk) 09:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some articles about Kerio products from PC Magazine (2004 and 2005): [1], [2], [3] Merger of other articles about software from Kerio may be viable solution. Pavlor (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the top source is the about us page of Kerio.
- merge = delete I suggest we allow this page to die, and the more promenent of the product pages can add in any RS about the actual company, which has little/no notabilty appart from the products. Some of the citations are usenet posts, the about us page, 3 are untranslated posts about a show. Little would need to be incorporated, so instead of leaving this for another group to address, we should delete and transfer the about us stuff to a section of the product article. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Darkstar1st: I see this opposite: keep this article and merge articles about products. There is only one usenet post used to reference claim about continuity of development Tiny/Kerio (weak source, of course), about page references only cities with their offices (with is OK, I think), third clearly non-RS source is used for date of incorporation. As of "3 are untranslated posts about a show", if you mean German language refrences, these quite well show introduction of new products and naming changes (all these pages are owned by big German media houses). Pavlor (talk) 11:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ widely fails WP:CORP. Widefox; talk 02:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep (per DGG) iff the product articles are merged - giving enough sources for some content a better option than the odd borderline notability stranded product article. Widefox; talk 11:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW Delete as a snowball's chance in hell given there's not only blatant advertising attempts but there's nothing in fact here for actual substance especially since the one Keep vote above says "this company is not notable", the 2011 AfD was troubled as it is because no one actually fully took the concerns seriously, let alone considered actions. SwisterTwister talk 00:57, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. and merge the various articles on the products into this article. They have substantial reviews, so it is appropriate that there be some coverage. DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with DGG. There are reviews of their software (I added examples linked above to the article). Best solution would be to merge all Kerio products into this article. Pavlor (talk) 07:25, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Added another reference iX magazine/heise.de: [4] Pavlor (talk) 07:57, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Another one... The Register: [5] Pavlor (talk) 08:10, 25 November 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.