Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DDC-I, Inc.


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

DDC-I, Inc.

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I don't know if this is even notable. HeartOS is not even notable; do we have any more references outside of four that it has as well as a Wikipedia article that is used as an external link? みんな空の下 (トーク) 21:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions.  —みんな空の下 (トーク) 21:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  —みんな空の下 (トーク) 21:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This is a old software company, and there are not many surviving for 40 years in an industry that only started around 60 years ago. It is clearly notable. Sources will be quite hard to find, since it's a specialist. Well worth keeping. scope_creep (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thirty years. 1980 was thirty years ago. It only seems like forty. Age is not really much of a criteria, and conversely one might say they've had thirty years to attain notability and haven't. It's true that sources must be hard to find: four links are given as references. Two are dead. One is a brief press-release type article in Dr. Dobbs. One is more a real article, at Embedded Computing Design. Both the non-dead links are mostly about product releases, not about the company. Per WP:CORP, "[A]ttention solely from... media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". Herostratus (talk) 03:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep Obviously needs better references, but I think it should stay.  Nole  lover  01:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I find this all a little bizarre. Minna Sora no Shita—in future, please "make a good-faith attempt to confirm that... sources don't exist" before nominating, per WP:BEFORE. Scope creep: you argue for keeping it because you assume notability based on age but also thinks sources "will be" quite hard to find. Herostratus: you take the opposite view that since sources "must be" hard to find, that means it probably never gained notability. And Nolelover, you give no reason for your opinion. But no one bothered to check whether sources are hard to find. Well, it literally took about 20 seconds to confirm that sources are abundant. Google books search with the companies home town included as a false positive limiter and news results.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Touche...  Nole  lover  14:33, 2 September 2010 (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.