Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Configure One

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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Configure One

Configure One (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)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH due to lack of in-depth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. As far as I can tell, meaningful coverage is limited to a single article in a regional publication (Illinois Business Daily) and some coverage of the company's acquisition on niche websites.

Substantively, nothing in the article convinces me that the company is particularly significant. Rentier (talk) 19:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Vote to keep up - According to WP:ORGDEPTH, “The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability.” The Illinois Business Daily article seems significantly in-depth to me, as it covers most of the company’s information, what they do, how they got founded, etc. I find it the company and its industry interesting and useful to know about. I think it’s inclusion improves the encyclopedia and I don’t see harm in letting the article stay up and organically grow like the rest of the company articles on Wikipedia. --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 20:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Keep - It's been covered significantly by at least one reliable source that's independent of the subject. That's the definition of Notability. It passes the test. Let's keep it up and keep improving it! --Allison Jean Paully (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

One source is almost never sufficient to establish notability, per WP:CORPDEPTH. The article in Illinois Business Daily (itself a non-notable regional paper) is quite shallow, based largely on quotes from the company's employee. There is no in-depth analysis, no indication of the company's wider significance. Rentier (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Keep - SA 13 Bro (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• Delete Despite the comments by the Keep !voters above, none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Michael Powerhouse argues that the coverage in the Illinois Business Daily article seems significantly in-depth to him. That article relies entirely on quotations from Preston Stewart who is the company's Business Development manager, therefore the article is not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND. Allison Jean Paully !votes to Keep and provides the reason that it has "been covered significantly by at least one reliable source that's independent of the subject. That's the definition of Notability." No, that it wrong on two counts. The first is that *two* sources must be cited. The second is that being covered by a reliable source that's independent of the subject is one half of that criteria - the other half is that the contents must be intellectually independent. None of the references are intellectually independent and they fails WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
• 'Delete. I agree with HK that this fails WP:NCORP. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:46, 5 December 2017 (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.