Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hornbill Systems


 * 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. The question over whether their product was used in the Olympics does not appear to affect notability much. The olympics have used a great many things, but standard practice has been that a connection like that doesn't confer notability. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hornbill Systems
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

article about Non-notable company with referencing that doesn't meet our criteria for significant coverage from reliable 3rd party sources (predominantly proving existence and not importance/significance). Was tagged A7 but, because it mentioned an award that was removed. Not convinced the award itself is particularly notable or significant enough for the company to meet our criteria for inclusion. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The awards section has been restored here- I removed it, my apologies - so I'm not sure why this article has been re-nominated? Presumably the same criteria apply now, and since the decision was made to retain it based on the award, that decision should still apply? David James Bailey (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The award only "saved it" from Speedy Deletion for the reasons I've already expressed to you previously (hence why you put it back in the first place). The article hasn't been "re-nominated" in the way you may think but, nominated for the first time because of the reasons I've already given above (essentially being non-notable and not covered significantly in reliable 3rd party coverage). Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Another non-consumer software business with no showing of notability within the actual guidelines.  Industry awards don't really show general notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "Non-consumer" is a bogus argument per WP:NOT, i.e. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a guide to consumer software at the expense of enterprise or embedded software. VasileGaburici (talk) 03:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a guide to any kind of software; much less is it a host for promotional articles about software businesses.  On the other hand, consumer software is at least somewhat likely to receive notice in general interest reliable sources, and as such may be potentially salvageable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  00:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems notable enough since their main product was used for the Summer Olympics of 2008. VasileGaburici (talk) 03:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You should be aware that the reference backing this up actually has nothing to do with the Summer Olympics of 2008 and is actually about Atos Origins involvement in the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics. As a false claim I have removed it from the article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that's incorrect. As it clearly states here, "The contract, with the International Olympic Committee (IOC), covered four Games over eight years, Salt Lake City in 2002 (operated by SchlumbergerSema), Athens in 2004, Torino in 2006 and Beijing in 2008, and has subsequently been extended to include Vancouver in 2010 and London in 2012.". ATOS Origin has the contract but that includes Hornbill as a subcontractor. So the section should not have been removed. In fact, it should be extended. I'll revert and extend that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David James Bailey (talk • contribs) 10:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Simply pointing me back to a non-reliable source doesn't fix the problem. The sourcing needs to be to reliable 3rd parties. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, the sourcing probably needs work, but ATOS Origin are providers of software for the Olympics, and Hornbill are a part of that solution. Unless you're accusing Hornbill of literally lying, I think that labelling it "a false claim" and removing it was OTT. I'd certainly be happy with a "citations needed" notice as a compromise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David James Bailey (talk • contribs) 11:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologise. I may have been misled by the title being exactly the same as the ZDNET reference and the source being Hornbill. I think you are much better off finding proper sourcing which covers the company/software/whatever in a significant and reliable manner.Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem - and yes, I agree the article does need better sourcing, and that's definitely on my "To-Do" list. David James Bailey (talk) 12:52, 19 September 2008 (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.