Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canonical Ltd.


 * 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The result was keep per consensus, nom also withdrawn.  A r k y a n  &#149; (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Canonical Ltd.

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Having applied a PROD and had it removed I feel that an AFD discussion is needed for this article. The reasons are simple, it cites no sources and has no real claim to notablity, and is not suitable fo ran encyclopedia, but is really just a page to link a homepage to. See WP:N and WP:NOT for futher discussion Politicalwatchmen 20:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: Notable open-source software company, especially for sponsoring Ubuntu. Sources here, here, and numerous Google hits. - PoliticalJunkie 21:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: Ditto PoliticalJunkie.--NapoliRoma 05:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: Ubuntu is such an important product that it is a valid claim to notability. References needs, as usual.DGG 09:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: --Emx 14:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: Sounds like the best approach would be go and locate those needed references! Are Red Hat, Microsoft, Novell and Apple Inc. going up for deletion next?  Sladen 16:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Further Notes: I have done some updates to the Canonical Ltd article. It's rare that you come across a company where I was able to find pre-existing Wikipedia entries for 10+ (20%?) of the current workforce (>50% of the original start-up?).  The company appears to be the largest employer of Debian developers in the world (19 at 2005 counts).  The current payroll includes two former Debian Project Leaders and one former Cosmonaut.  Sladen 19:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment as the article was it seemed a little thin, and needed more references and more information, as the article is now it is much improved. Politicalwatchmen 19:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Rule of Thumb When you find an article that's thin, don't automatically think "kill", think "improve." Stub articles should be left in place as inspiration for others to come and contribute to the article.  You should be especially careful of calling WP:N, unless you truly have a comprehensive knowledge of the genre/market that the article is associated with.--NapoliRoma 21:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply No major edits had been made in six months to this article, now it has been vastly improved. If it hadn't been improved then its deletion would have been justified, there is no point leaving half done articles on here. As things go, it has been improved substantially so the AFD has achieved its purpose, which is always to improve an article, whether by deleting it or beefing it up and keeping it. As it stands I would say Keep. Politicalwatchmen 10:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * ...so is that a "close - keep"?--NapoliRoma 12:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * May as well close the afd, the article is now worth keeping. Find and admin to do so. Politicalwatchmen 13:33, 27 March 2007 (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.