Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boinx 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 delete. Fails WP:NCORP.

Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Boinx Software

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This article is a product of suspected UPE. I cleaned it up a bit but it still cannot really be salvaged. I'm guessing the editor put their best sources forward, but the ones in the article don't meet WP:GNG nevermind WP:NCORP. Also did a search and cannot find NCORP-meeting coverage. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Very reluctant keep. I 100% agree with the reasons given by ProcrastinatingReader. This article seems to be a promotional effort by either a paid editor or someone connected to the company. It's a low quality listing of products verging on linkspam, and lacks objectivity. And it has been this way for a long time, without anyone really caring to fix it, which in itself suggests a lack of notability. However, philosophically I believe that if someone encounters a company and visits Wikipdia looking for information they should get a page. The article does cite some verifiable sources although it doesn't use them to any great benefit. I would prefer to keep the unpaid banner, which alerts people to the lack of objectivity.Oblivy (talk) 03:34, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Your opinion that "philosophically" articles about companies should be kept makes a mockery of our strict WP:NCORP guidelines on how to assess the notability of companies.  HighKing++ 16:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  23:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Another reluctant keep, while deleting or merging the product article mimoLive. I disagree with above that any company merits an article for merely existing. My main criterion, albeit subjective, is to think if someone reading ten years from now would find the information still useful. From what I can tell, the company has been around since 2007 at least with several products getting noticed a bit at a time. Adding these up together gives me a NCORP, but I know others disagree. Some potential sources seem to be in non-English, but that should not disqualify them. If consensus is delete, that might be reasonable too. W Nowicki (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I don't think a company gets an article just for existing, but this is a company with a product history and a userbase, which means people who encounter their products may want some background on the company (background barely provided by the article). Merging with mimoLive would probably still achieve this goal.Oblivy (talk) 00:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * keep (weak keep) - to me, there looks like *just* enough RS to justify keeping the page. Clearly not all companies get a page... but there is some discussion of this company in various media. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment "*just enough RS" isn't one of the criteria for Keeping an article. Even if we assume every reference meets RS, according to WP:SIRS the references also need to meet CORPDEPTH and ORGIND for example, and none of the references I can locate come even close.  HighKing++ 16:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge with mimolive as per WP:ATD or Delete. This article is about a company/organization and therefore the appropriate guideline] is [[WP:NCORP. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "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. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. They are either standard business listings relavent to Apple design awards for a product (not the company, which is the topic of this article) or regurgitations of company "announcements". Topic fails WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 16:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per HighKing. MimoLive is up for deletion as well, so merging to that page could still result in a deletion. Heartmusic678 (talk) 11:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Has a few sources, but the sources are about products and at best trivial mentions of the company. WP:NOTINHERITED applies. - MrOllie (talk) 13:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - Has few sources, none of these seem to demonstrate any notability per WP:N. Looking at the companies LinkedIn page alone, it only has seven staff. That already says a lot. Yes, there can be companies with a small headcount who are notable, Wikipedia at one time surely had few staff also. However this does indicate a small business, and smaller businesses are typically not notable, generally speaking. Googling further, several pages of Google show little to no sources independent of the subject. The article hence has no true independent verifiable sources, and as such is unlikely to be suitable for Wikipedia. Whilst I do understand that some people here think that if you Wiki a company, a page should come up, this completely goes against the first paragraph of wp:NCORP which states no company or organisation is inherently notable'. As such, in order to be notable, it must have 'significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. I feel like for some here, this article is on the border. To me, it is not even close. It simply does not meet the relevant standards and policies developed by consensus and should go. Such-change47 (talk) 08:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per HighKing fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2021 (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.