Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SpikeSource

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. MBisanz ^talk 22:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SpikeSource

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

5 line profile written by none other the company officials. Non-notable. nothing to write about as being Encyclopedia notable. Light2021 (talk) 06:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My searches are finding nothing better than routine coverage of product announcement and then the 2010 acquisition of the firm's assets by another firm (itself deleted at AfD recently so not available as a redirect target). Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 14:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom and above, I can't find anything except passing mentions - David Gerard (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are few news articles and other passing mentions about SourceSpike in the InfoWorld magazine (2004, 2005), but nothing close to real broad coverage. Pavlor (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- heise.de has several short news about SpikeSource; mostly mentions in articles about other companies in The Inquirer; The Register has at least two detailed stories: [1] and [2]. Worth to add to the article or waste of my time? Pavlor (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting - I usually check The Register for IT companies but plainly hadn't on this one. The David Norfolk article from 2006 is useful. I would still say that it was speculation about what the company may accomplish, largely on the basis of the known names then on its board: were that now, then WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTINHERITED would be applicable, but it does indicate there was some attention during the company's lifespan. AllyD (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This was entertaining experience... I removed all unsourced informations (horrible article!) and added (more or less) RS based text (using two The Register references mentioned above, two short news from iX magazine/heise.de, one Ars Technica article about consortium they co-created and two InfoWorld articles about first products). I also corrected broken references to SpikeSource website (for date of founding) and Black Duck Software press release (for date of purchase). If the article is kept, someone should anglicize it, because my English is poor... Pavlor (talk) 16:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a blatant advertisement, regardless of the company's fate, because everything that is listed is simply about what there was to actually advertise about the company including about its business information and services and who was involved with it; none of that suggests any substance, and we can certainly delete it alone with that and blatant advertising attempts. SwisterTwister talk 22:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the revised article is not convincing either; nothing stands out about this unremarkable company to warrant an encyclopedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @K.e.coffman: What is needed for an encyclopedia article about company? I thought only significant coverage in reliable sources is necessary. Are sourced used there non-reliable? Or more sources needed? Or sources are OK, but their coverage of the article subject unsufficient? Pavlor (talk) 08:11, 23 October 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.