Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KE Software

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.  Sandstein  07:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KE Software (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)

NN software firm with no in-depth coverage - other than it was once acquired by Axiell. All of the sources in the article are primary from customers or a marketing site. Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. The Dissident Aggressor 23:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  01:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  01:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  01:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete likely as I'm not seeing much to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The company is important as a specialist provider of software for cataloguing museum collections and archives. It has been described as ...the world’s leading provider of Collections Management systems and services for natural history museums, cultural history museums, art museums, herbaria, botanic gardens, archives and special collections. The company’s clients include the three largest museums in the world. [1] Its role in museum collection management is recognized in the large number of museum users world wide. note I was the writer and so declare my interest Garyvines (talk) 07:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC) I have added a bunch of other third party sources which identify the importance of the company's KE Emu program to museum cataloguing and management, some with quite extensive discussions of the role of its main product KE Emu in museum operations.Garyvines (talk) 04:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This reference might be a better indication..http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/19/1053196515387.html Jenny Sinclair, 'Tracking 16 million artefacts', The Sydney Morning Herald May 20 2003]

• Comment Gary, you have been here long enough to know that to deny a speedy A7 it is enough to have a credible assertion of notability, not proven notability. That's a very low barrier. At AfD, criteria are more stringent and if you want to argue that an article should be kept, an assertion is not enough but notability must be demonstrated by references to independent reliable sources. --Randykitty (talk) 08:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added an up-front statement of notability and additional independent sources to support this - see refs 7 and 8.Garyvines (talk) 13:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Garyvines, #8 is just a customer saying they used the product and all #7 says is that the product complies with some standards body's spec. Neither of those - or all of them together - satisfy either WP:CORP and/or WP:GNG. That's what we're looking for here.

BTW, you may notice that I've WP:THREADed your comment above as it is a continuation of that discussion. The Dissident Aggressor 15:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article seems to be abundantly sourced, with (at this point) 11 references. However, this is deceptive. I looked at every one of them and they are all press releases, a few in-passing mentions, and dependent websites. Not a single one constitutes in-depth coverage in an independent reliable source. As an aside, I'm confused by the preceding !vote: we're at AfD here, not speedy deletion (for which no discussion page is created). --Randykitty (talk) 08:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete remember that unless there is a specific guideline that holds that importance in the field supercedes the need for adequate coverage, that the WP:GNG applies. There is no such guideline for software, nor does the essay WP:NSOFTWARE suggest that. Therefore delete for lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources, even though people say nice things like KE Titan (KE Software Pty Ltd), a post-relational information management system that was able to retrieve information at a speed not previously attainable. in passing. --Bejnar (talk) 23:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Bejnar, but what about the Jenny Sinclair article? 'Tracking 16 million artefacts', The Sydney Morning Herald May 20 2003; and how about the Hart and Hallet Article, which puts the development of the program in the context of changes in museum information management from the 1970s on -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 AustraliaISBN 978-1-876944-92-6, and also note that the first of the pc based collection management programs, was developed by the associated Vernon Systems, and note a new paragraph referring to exhibitions in Museum and Heritage Conventions.Garyvines (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. on the basis of Gary Vines' material here. Clearly documented as a leader in its field. The documentation meets the GNG. 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. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Enough and reliable sources, passes notability guideline.Wikienglish123 (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

•  Note: The above account has been confirmed socking, cf. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scholarscentral and I have struck their comment per WP:SOCKSTRIKE - Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:12, 7 November 2015 (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.