Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ciiva (company)


 * 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. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Ciiva (company)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. A mix of promotion and deception. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I've restored the AFD here since it was blanked for some unknown reason. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  11:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Same editor also blanked Articles for deletion/Toradex, a business they are promoting with their main edits. Xe also removed the advert maintenance tag from this article. Clearly here to promote. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Does he really think blanking will achieve anything ? ... Well thank god he's blocked I suppose. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  14:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That one account only. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG.  A bunch of links to download sites don't count and neither does the anonymous "review".  Msnicki (talk) 01:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a well known and useful tool for electronics engineers. I removed the links from download sites and added more trusted secondary sources including notable Red Herring (magazine) for reference.--Lemanlake (talk) 11:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC) — Lemanlake (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * I don't think it is well-known and if it were, there'd be some evidence. There isn't any.  I've looked at your new sources and they're all at least as worthless as the download sites.  The startup.ch and ecnmag.com pages are just directory-style listings of basic information about the company likely supplied by the company itself.  The redherring.com page is even less helpful:  It's just the company name, country and sector on long mishmash list of unrelated companies.  Msnicki (talk) 16:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Not surprised that you have never heard of redherring.com, many today's giant tech firms made their debut on Red Herring Top 100 technology awards. --Lemanlake (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, please. Of course I've heard of redherring.com.  I'm saying that particular page on redherring is worthless and I told you why.  Too bad you've never heard of what it takes to make a reliable independent secondary source.  Msnicki (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in independent references. A one-line listing as one of 100 finalists for an award is not significant coverage, and a search did not turn up any significant RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 10:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete&mdash;Insufficient WP:RS to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:00, 18 July 2014 (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.