Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creaform (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. Killiondude (talk) 08:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Creaform (company)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable tech company. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH, as the article suffers from a lack of in-depth coverage. The article's sources are limited to trivial mentions or to press releases concerning business. Does the company produce products? Yes. Does this equate to encyclopedic value when considering What Wikipedia is not? No. SamHolt6 (talk) 05:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 05:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 05:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete: An article about a Ametek subsidiary, sourced to routine announcements about factory, product and business acquisition. I am seeing nothing to indicate encyclopaedic notability in its own right. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The related Creaform_(disambiguation) can be redirected to Ametek but is it needed - I am not finding a distinct German GIS firm, only Creaform GmbH, a hotel furniture firm of that name? AllyD (talk) 08:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: I have added a Montreal Gazette reference about the early days of the company and a Le Journal de Montréal reference about the AMTEK acquisition .  Of the other sources in the article, the TCT Mag one appears to be reliable+in-depth.  Le Soleil is a major daily newspaper, and the article is focused on Creaform.  The 3DPrinting Industry pieces appear to be reliable, and not just routine.  The 3DPrint.com source seems OK too.  I'm not sure about the other sources, some of them might be press releases.  Coverage in three daily papers + a bunch of specialty trade publications should be enough for WP:CORPDEPTH. - Mparrault (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is another La Soleil article, here is a Globe and Mail article, here is a Le Journal de Québec piece, here is an almost trivial mention (but still with useful info) in the National Post. - Mparrault (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 07:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete References that are extensively based and rely on interviews with company officers, press releases, company announcements, etc, without intellectually independent analysis and/or opinion fail the criteria for establishing notability. The references that I can find fail the criteria. For example, Mparrault above says that the TCT Mag reference appears to be reliable+in-depth - sure, but its based on a company press release and contains no additional data/information or intellectually independent analysis or opinion. "Coverage" in reliable sources is not enough to meet the criteria for establishing notability. The coverage must be intellectually independent - otherwise all we're really doing is acknowledging that the company has a functioning marketing department and/or lazy churnalism. Topic fails GNG, references fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH.  HighKing++ 18:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 *  HighKing, the strongest references are the ones in the daily newspapers, none of which you discussed. WP:ORGIND is about whether the source is independent of the company - content does not need to be "intellectually independent", and there is no mention that analysis is needed.  Not all of the daily newspaper articles are just re-released press releases. -Mparrault (talk) 14:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll explain. I didn't discuss the newspaper references because they are clearly based on company announcements and interviews and therefore fail CORPDEPTH and/or ORGIND. Contrary to what you say, sources to meet the criteria for notability must be intellectually independent and references that are extensively based on company announcements or other PRIMARY material fail those criteria. "Independent sources" does not simply mean sources that are independent at a corporate level in that the publisher is not dependent on the company, it goes further to mean sources that are not influenced by the company and that the article is not simply regurgitating company blurb. Some articles might paraphrase the announcement but without independent analysis or opinion are still considered to fail the criteria for establishing notability. "Intellectually independent" simply incorporates that idea. WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND specifically deal with those issues. I have looked at the newspaper articles and they are based on company announcements and interviews and therefore extensively rely on PRIMARY sources. If you like, post the specific link to article below here that you believe meet the criteria and I will provide you with a detailed explanation (based on my opinon) for each.  HighKing++ 17:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Going through the better sources:
 * 1. A Montreal Gazette article in considerable depth about the company.  Definitely a very positive article, although the article does note that "the partners were finding it difficult to pierce the lucrative U.S. market".  There are a lot of quotes from the company CEO, but there is also a lot of other content too. and it is not written by the company.
 * 2. An in-depth Globe and Mail article about Creaform's Indian operations.  Again, very positive, but not written by the company directly or indirectly.
 * 3. An article in The Engineer, a 162-year old trade magazine, in some depth, not based on a press release.  Generally positive, but not entirely so (e.g. "For a fledgling business to invest heavily in such a new technology was a gamble but it turned out to be an inspired decision")
 * 4. A Journal de Montreal article about Creaform's sale to AMETEK.  Rather short, with many details not in the relevant press release announcing the transaction.  There are a number of other stories also about this acquisition, with similar but not identical content (e.g. )
 * 5. A La Soleil article about Creaform acquiring Gencad.  Fairly short, but does not appear to be based on a press release (this press release does not have many of the details in the article)
 * In my opinion, 1, 2, 3 easily pass WP:ORGIND. 5 and 6 might be considered "substantially based on a press release", although there is content there not in the relevant press releases. Some of the other sources might be OK too. -Mparrault (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete -- a corporate brochure on a non notable company, detailing its "Corporate structure" and "Products and services". Wikipedia is not a catalog of nn business or a free means of promotion. The sources above are local, not meeting WP:AUD, or routine corporate news, not meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. Does one of them call the company a "fledgling business"? This screams WP:TOOSOON, i.e. the company is not yet notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:26, 27 January 2018 (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.