Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genetec


 * 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 no consensus. Half the commentators consider that the sources are sufficient to make this company notable; half the commentators consider that the sources are essentially press releases and are insufficient to make this company notable. There have been two relists and I am not confident that yet another relisting will produce a clear consensus. It is not the role of the closing admin to cast a supervote to referee between the opposing camps, by giving a personal view of the strength of the sources, when the Community is clearly undecided. At the moment, this seems to be a rapidly growing company; consequently it is better to let a reasonable period of time pass and, if considered appropriate at a future date, revisit this article at a fresh AfD. TerriersFan (talk) 03:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Genetec

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non-notable tech company. Unreferenced. Also, it's written as an advertisement. Hahc21 [ TALK ] [ CONTRIBS  ] 20:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable. All I could find at Google News was press releases. (I had to add "Canada" to the search because the name is not unique - there appear to be dozens of companies named Genetec, not to mention the massively better known company Genentech). --MelanieN (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)




 * Comment: Also search for "Genetic Inc" for some possible refs, like:

Cheers. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 10:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep items 4 and 5 above meet notability requirements. --Kvng (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)




 * Keep – The topic passes WP:GNG. Note that the following sources are not press releases; they're articles written by staff writers at their respective publications:
 * Genetec se distingue comme PME exportatrice - Affaires - Nouvelles Saint-Laurent News
 * Genetec Updates Security Platform with Health Monitoring - Campus Technology
 * Genetec lance un nouveau client Web unifié compatible avec de nombreux navigateurs web et environnements d’exploitation - Global Security Mag Online
 * Genetec choisie pour assurer la sécurité du Melbourne Cricket Ground - Global Security Mag Online
 * Genetec ranked 24th fastest growing technology company in Canada | Security News - SourceSecurity.com
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 05:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Essentially all the references are press releases. "24th fastest growing technology company in canada" reads to be like good evidence for NOT YET NOTABLE.  DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per NorthAmerica1000. ZackMartin (talk) 12:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Shouldn't WP:TRIVCOV be the main source of the discussion here? "notability guideline doesn't require that the subject is the main topic of the source material, only that it's more than a trivial mention". If the articles are press releases, then it is not a good source for material or coverage. However, it there are enough articles that make more than trivial mention there are possible grounds for notability. In my opinion, the article as it stands is not encyclopedic and doesn't display notability. -- Loukinho (talk) 00:18, 21 June 2012 (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.