Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rightware (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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rightware (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, failing Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Additionally, if the content relies on self-published sources, appears promotional, or does not demonstrate a lasting impact Welcome to Pandora (talk) 07:45, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Welcome to Pandora (talk) 07:45, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Finland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose due to inaccurate nomination this article needs to be updated and there is missing information, but it is not fair to say that it should be deleted because it is not notable and relies on promotional material or self published sources when the sources used are TechCrunch, VentureBeat, etc. There are some self published sources that could be removed, and could have been removed by the nominator faster than creating this AfD. At the same time there are plenty of other RS that could be added to enhance the article and improve it such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 which all support that this firm is notable according to WP:NCORP Nayyn (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Which sources meet NCORP? Specifically, which sources contain "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company* and not just regurgitated company info or based on quotes from execs? HighKing⁺⁺ 13:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• @Nayyn: please clarify

• This from tech.eu dated 19 Dec 2019 relies entirely on regurgitating this announcement from the same date issued from the company. It contains no independent content and fails ORGIND.
• [This fails for the exact same reasons but also because they are a connected party, having advised on the deal. Fails ORGIND.
• [This is a Press Release written by the company, obviously press releases are not independent content, fails ORGIND.
• This is another regurgitation of a company press release. Fails ORGIND.
• This techcrunch article fails ORGIND for the exact same reasons as the first two.

I'm baffled as to how these references can possibly meet NCORP. Can you clarify which paragraphs in each source contains in-depth "independent content" or how they otherwise meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability? HighKing⁺⁺ 13:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @HighKing do you no longer hold your previous view on this? Stockhausenfan (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Stockhausenfan, the previous AfD was over 7 years ago and since then, it has been established that reviews of the software product do not confer notability on the company. If the article was about the software, then the software reviews could be used to establish notability on the software. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for the same reasons as the previous AfD (which is not addressed by the new nomination). Stockhausenfan (talk)

• @Stockhausenfan:. Which references meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability of the company? Which parts of the articles are in-depth "independent content" *about* the *company*? HighKing⁺⁺ 11:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 16:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't think I can find a single source that isn't a WP:ORGTRIV announcement. (for the record, TechCrunch and VentureBeat are terrible sources for notability for the most part, though there are occasional instances where they're useful for that purpose I guess) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:37, 30 April 2025 (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.