Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intertrust Technologies Corporation (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 keep. apparent consensus  DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Intertrust Technologies Corporation
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article was earlier speedy deleted after a normal AfD procedure (Articles for deletion/Intertrust Technologies Corporation. I am not convinced that the present moved-back-without-WP:REFUND-request article is neutral in style and tone. So I request the opinions of others. The Banner talk 19:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep after investing much effort to save it by adding independent sources and neutral tone. It would help if the nominator would elaborate which side they think the article errs: is it too promotional of the company, or does mentioning a term like "patent troll", all the losses, and staff reductions make it too much of a complaint? As indicated in the talk page, the current incarnation of the article does not have any of the usual buzzwords and acronyms associated with promotional technology articles. Thanks. W Nowicki (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Independent sources? You have used a press release nine times.
 * And that is why I asked the opinion of others about this article. The Banner talk 21:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Press releases can be used as sources, as long as the article paraphrases into neutral language. The use of independent sources is needed only to determine the notability of the subject. I tried to be clear about which were primary sources instead of trying to hide them. We can debate which of the other 29 non-press-release sources are truly independent. I would think for example Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Forbes, might be independent. W Nowicki (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Independent sources are better, conforn WP:RS. To me, using press releases signals lack of independent sources about the subject. The Banner talk 09:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment There are few articles (or mentions) about both InterTrust and Electronic Publishing Resources in InfoWorld and PC Mag magazines (I may provide direct links, but search via google books is easy). Sources like Forbes often have rather permissive publishing policy, big name doesn´t mean good source - must be judged case by case. Despite that, I´m leaning to keep. Pavlor (talk) 09:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. W Nowicki (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. W Nowicki (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete as clear advertising sourced by mirrored advertising, which is violating our main policies alone, wherever published or whatever significance from other named people. SwisterTwister   talk  23:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep A most interesting read for a dry topic, digital rights management.  This is a longstanding Silicon valley enterprise, and I loved the idea of the InfoWorld source from 1985.  I don't necessarily know how to interpret the results at Google scholar, but there are a lot of them.  Only complaint is I'd like to see citations on all of the BLPs in the infobox.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep -- a storied company, having gone through IPO etc and per improvements by . Article is not currently promotional in tone and is reasonably sourced. Separately, I've substantially reduced material cited to press releases: diff. I don't see a reason to delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:57, 3 March 2017 (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.