Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FairCom (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  Sandstein  19:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

FairCom
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Software firm of insufficient independent coverage. Previously deleted for being purely promotional; G4 declined this time round for substantially different content. Unfortunately that translates as "substantially more of the same" in this case. There's not a single source here that is not either a listing, a press release, or promotional copy. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:28, 29 December 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:28, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - not enough significant coverage from independent reliable sources to show it passes either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH.  Onel 5969  TT me 19:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete still not notable per GNG. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I work for FairCom in its marketing department and was alerted today about this entry and its possible deletion. I am a novice when it comes to Wikipedia. I hope this does not come across as confrontational, because it is not meant to be: For reference for whomever created this article and any potential future editors, what can be done to make this article meet the guidelines? ... Now speaking as someone who is a former journalist and has been associated with technology organizations for nearly two decades (approximately two years at FairCom) FairCom deserves to be apart of Wikipedia because it has been and continues to be a pioneer in the database industry. In addition to what is mentioned in the article, FairCom is one of the first database companies to offer a database specifically for IoT and more than 40 percent of the Fortune 100 uses FairCom. Among its many use cases is that the FAA uses FairCom for every flight plan that flies within or through U.S. airspace, and Faircom is used as the database in the leading backup and disaster recovery solution on the market today (according to Forrester and Gartner.) I can also tell you through firsthand knowledge that some of these sources are legit articles and not regurgitations of news releases. They were the result of independent reporters and analysts conducting research and interviews for their stories in their publications. ... Again, I am not trying to be confrontational. I would like to learn more, and hopefully this discussion will result in a better FairCom entry by editors and contributors. Due to its rich 40-year history in the database industry and use by many leading brands, it would be a shame if the FairCom page is deleted from Wikipedia. Thank you for your time and consideration. BT1002 (talk) BT1002 (talk) 04:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia notability requirements for companies are so high, you would need really broad coverage in good quality reliable sources. However, some of the FairCom products may be notable (eg. I found nearly two page review of FairCom Micro B+ for CP/M in the InfoWorld magazine - volume 3, number 7, 13 April 1981, ca. pp. 30-31). It is much easier to establish notability for applications (the older, the easier), so - if the company article is deleted - creating new article for some notable product with a short info about the company (with "FairCom" redirecting to that article) may be a viable solution. Note you should read WP:COI and WP:PAID before creating such new article. I´m willing to help to write one, if software in question is older than 25 years (preferably even older). Pavlor (talk) 09:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete I declined the G4 because there were clear differences between this and the previous version of the article, and different sources were used - it wasn't a G4. I agree though that the sources don't meet the requirements at WP:NCORP, and this article needs to be deleted. Girth Summit  (blether)  13:04, 31 December 2019 (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.