Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embarcadero Technologies


 * 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.  Sandstein  07:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Embarcadero Technologies

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Questionably notable and improvable? company with my searches only finding this, this, this, this and this. Pinging, , , , , and  (not sure who else there is to ping before it was speedy deleted but there's likely not active anyway). SwisterTwister  talk  22:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  22:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  22:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  22:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  22:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm going with keep on this one because of the good references. Not So Dumb Blond (talk) 01:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Because there are a couple of good references. Not So Dumb Blond (talk) 01:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually have you noticed almost all of the sources are to the company itself....including press releases? Therefore no oustandingly better third-party coverage. SwisterTwister   talk  01:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ugh, you're right, most of them are. But there are like three third party sources. It needs cleanup and improvement if nothing else. I'm sticking to my keep vote though, but I'm not trying to start something. Not So Dumb Blond (talk) 01:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete I've little interest in helping a company promote its products. At least two editors have used variants of the company name (now blocked since that's not allowed) and it's basically a shopping list of their products, notable or not Jimfbleak - talk to me?  05:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * CommentI don't have a strong opinion on the notability of this company, but I'd comment that searches for  and "C++ Builder", perhaps their most notable products bring up many millions of hits, much more than "Embarcadero Technologies". These were developed by the innovative Borland company, which has its own article; the software Delphi (programming language), C++ Builder, and others also have their own well-merited pages. So the company owns some very notable software. Having used Borland's $50 Turbo Pascal (later back-name Turbo Pascal 1.x) and its successors, which include Delphi, I have a strong interest in the software, but no allegiance to Embarcadero. Pol098 (talk) 11:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Mild Keep. Certainly the product list could be (completely?) culled. I think it's an important company in the history of Windows development products. peterl (talk) 03:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Some of their products are definitely notable. I'd say that's true of at least Delphi, C++Builder, JBuilder, and InterBase. On that basis, I would say they are notable - a company which has multiple notable products is therefore itself notable. (If it only had a single notable product, you could argue a company doesn't deserve a separate article from its single notable product; but when a company has multiple notable products, it deserves its own article.) SJK (talk) 08:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep large company that has existed for a while and is deeply entwined with many notable subjects. Mentions in RS are pretty common. I have added a bit to the article. Antrocent (&#9835;&#9836;) 07:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. None of the references in the article strike me as establishing notability.  They're a mix of self-published sources, reports of M/A and financial activity, and routine coverage in industry periodicals which are almost certainly warmed-over press releases.  16:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC) (apparently I failed to sign this properly, so doing that now -- RoySmith (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC))

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.  </li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Embarcadero Technologies to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 08:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)</li></ul>
 * Weak Keep: The company seems notable although it also seems to have not justfied/bigged up this in the article. The page should be made smaller without the product list and should use more inline citations. So just about a keep, but with some serious cleanup needed and perhaps a note to the major editors on their talk page. RailwayScientist (talk) 08:13, 7 November 2015 (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.