Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laserfiche (4th 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  12:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Laserfiche
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 18:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  HighKing++ 18:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  HighKing++ 18:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. References 9 through 12 and the first three external links seem to be in-depth coverage from reliable sources. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, "in-depth coverage from reliable sources" omits the ORGIND requirement for "Independent Content". Anyway, not sure if you're just pulling our legs but reference 9 has no information whatsoever about the company (has a little about the product but that's not the topic of this article) and relies entirely on an interview with Nien-Ling Wayman, president of Compulink Management Center Inc., who are resellers so not "Independent Content", fails ORGIND. So, can you describe for me the content of any of the other two which isn't a quote (from either the company or from Compulink the reseller) or a standard boilerplate company description (which has no in-depth information)? Perhaps you can reconsider your !vote?  HighKing++ 21:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per Eastmain. Can't access the books, but the Network Computing and GCN articles look like WP:SIGCOV. NemesisAT (talk) 16:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, the appropriate guideline is NCORP so both WP:CORPDEPTH *and* WP:ORGIND must be satisfied by each reference used to establish notability. Your first reference from Netword Computing doesn't say anything at all about the company as its a review of three products so fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The second reference, similarly, says nothing about the company at all as it is an article about a customer's experience with the product, also fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Can you reconsider your !vote?  HighKing++ 21:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - having seen the "WP:NCORP is Alpha and Omega" argument elsewhere, I'm entirely unconvinced. We're talking about a company whose name is common parlance in particular industries because integration and alignment with their products is the standard for that industry. End users talk about "creating Laserfiche documents" and "converting from Laserfiche" in a manner that suggests that its not just notable among those industries, but well known. Comprehensive coverage of the subject's products, by way of reviews, is an obvious indication of notability and the shortsightedness of WP:NCORP, and the rigid application of that guideline (yes, guideline, not suicide pact), is disingenuous. Let the bludgeoning begin.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 11:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Note to closer This user is making their !vote in bad faith and has only made this !vote because they disagree with the interpretation of NCORP and are trying to make a point. See the following debate.  HighKing</b>++ 18:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope, it was in the AFD log and I contribute to AFD all the time. Check the time-stamps; I made my comment here before that discussion started. You should probably address your disruptive behaviour before trying to bludgeon more discussions.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 05:59, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This edit was at the start of your campaign of personalised attacks. Your history of edits gives the game away. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 13:25, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * And a detailed discussion of sources (back in 2006) is available here. Consensus seemed to be that the company met notability guidelines even then but sock-puppetry from company-affiliated editors muddied the waters.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 11:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And did we have ORGIND and CORPDEPTH back in 2006? Yeah .. didn't think so. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 19:57, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete I couldn't find in-depth coverage of the company itself and, , are not enough to pass WP:NCORP. Even though LaserFiche software passes WP:PRODUCT with  and , that doesn't pertain to WP:NCORP for the company. Heartmusic678 (talk) 14:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon talk 20:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.