Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IRing

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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IRing

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

not notable. One trivial award, and a nomination for a more important one does not in the least contribute to notability. The refs are directory entries of it's own & related sites, and do not indcate any notability The relevant policies here is NOT DIRECTORY and NOT INDISCRIMINATE. Part of a promotional campaign which included an attempt to include articles on its individual products. paid editor, tho it took a while to get them to declare. DGG ( talk ) 22:47, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless more independent sourcing is found that discusses this company in-depth. The claim might be OK if that was the case, but it isn't now. 331dot (talk) 22:49, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of interest outside of the mining industry itself, even if it were notable. This temporarily was even added to "data mining"... HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The drilling and blasting software this company is producing is revolutionary. It used to take a mining engineer approximately three weeks to perform and modify the necessary calculations to determine all the results from a detonation. This program can do these tasks in an hour as well as give a detailed cost breakdown of the detonation. This program can be run using any explosive on any terrain. It is a global leader in drilling and blasting software. However, if I try to talk about its advanced features and its effectiveness to prove that it has some form of notability (such as above), this text is dictated as an advertisement. It's a catch 22, one cannot be fixed without the other being an issue. StevenSherry (talk) 13:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: StevenSherry (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

@StevenSherry: Notability doesn't mean you telling us how great your product is, it is independent sources saying that which confers notability. In some areas like this that may be hard to do. 331dot (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, the issue is in the sources. Since the company is fairly new and their software is just being implemented in the industry, the sources seemed to be lacking. That being said, this company is expanding rapidly, so it's notability will improve with time.StevenSherry (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@StevenSherry: It may be reasonable to discuss a product along with the manufacturer, in particular if the portfolio is not very diverse. It may be easier to establish notability of iRing together with Aegis, in one article. But please, respect WP:TOOSOON and WP:COI along with other policies. Try to find some proper secondary sources, not just press releases (and their copies in PRwires). Because of copyright, never copy from a PR announcement, and don't consider them to be reliable sources. Many products and features are announced, and never released. PR should go to PR wires, not to Wikipedia. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but if I put iRing Inc. and Aegis in one article, would it not automatically qualify as notable since it's a software? Meaning no sources would even really be required? StevenSherry (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, why would software be exempt from notability? But if a company overall is notable, a freshly announced product may be worth a subsection on the company page. And it may just be much more convenient for the reader to have everything on one page, rather than split across many pages. If necessary, it can always be split later. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is that not what it's indicating in A7 of the following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivghgJFBZYE? It's fairly unclear, but it says the software is not take into consideration for the notability of organizations. So, do you believe that if I combined the iRing and Aegis pages that it would be sufficiently notable? StevenSherry (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your link is wrong, you probably mean this: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). I am not convinced either is sufficiently notable, as I have not seen any independent coverage yet. What I am suggesting is that it may be easier for you to write just one article rather than three; and the company and this product seem to be "synonymous enough" to warrant the use of a single article. Above page says:

so for now, Aegis belongs into the iRing article; and if iRing is not notable, Aegis probably is not notable either. Please review that notability guideline, and demonstrate "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". I am pretty sure that any such sources that makes Aegis notable will also mention iRing in a way that would make the company notable (for producing a notable software). So this is what you need to do now: find such sources. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 21:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

lol yes it was the wrong link. This was the one I was referring to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#A7._No_indication_of_importance_.28people.2C_animals.2C_organizations.2C_web_content.2C_events.29 . In the A7 part of the article it mentions something to do with software. It is unclear, so I'm not exactly sure if it is directly indicating that software is notable regardless of the situation. But okay, your points make sense. How many independent sources would one need to qualify as "notable"? StevenSherry (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a fixed number, but the quality matters. If e.g. a newspaper article is just the press release slightly reworded, then it is not worth much. An independent review in a widely known print magazine is much better. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 22:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam with no indications of notability or significance. Note the external link in body -- a hallmark of such articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2017 (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.