Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IKAN


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

IKAN

 * – ( View AfD View log )



Non-notable company and its equally non-notable product. No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources: Fails WP:N. What sources we have are either blogs and user-submitted content, or they are trivial mentions in somewhat more reliable, independent sources like the Journal du Web. Both articles were prodded, prod removed by author without showing significant coverage in reliable sources. Huon (talk) 12:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Back-office maker of "application lifecycle management" software, apparently software that assists in the making of more software.  No indication that this business has ad any significant impact on history, culture, or technology. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The main reason seems to be not notable company and product. Mainly this is because there are no apparent third party unbiased articles. This is partially true I must admit. Though IKAN does have obvious partnerships with notable companies, for example they created and sold a product which is now owned by Oracle (a notable company).

Application Lifecycle Management is a well known term in application development and a term which seems to be notable enough on its own (hence the page). The IKAN ALM software is Application Lifecycle Management software, yet it is different from the rest because it allows the existing development environment of any company to be upgraded to ALM, instead of forcing the client to use new software.

By the way, this software runs in large international companies. Most of the companies in this industry listed on Wikipedia should also be deleted then, because of the same reasons. Best Regards (Johan Van Camp (talk) 09:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)).


 * Comment Johan Van Camp left the preceding text on the talk page, which should probably count as a keep. I'd like to add two comments: Firstly, notability is not inherited. Oracle certainly is notable, being a partner of Oracle is not inherently notable. Secondly, that other articles exist which suffer the same problems is not a reason to keep this article; I would probably agree that the other articles should be deleted as well. Huon (talk) 12:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added some more references regarding the other product. To avoid confusion, if one would encounter the name Minerva somewhere, it is a distributor of IKAN. (Johan Van Camp (talk) 08:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC))
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete I'm not seeing any evidence either in the article or elsewhere that this passes our WP:CORP guidelines. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete both articles per nom. Non notable company & product, unreliable references Ingadres (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2011 (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.