Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mantissa corporation


 * 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. While the tone of the article is admirably free of hyperbole, it fails the primary criterion of WP:CORP, namely being the subject of multiple independent secondary sources. All footnotes are to the corporate website. In "External links", the first two links are to corporate sites. The next three are to public relations pieces written by the company. The fourth link, titled "Newsletter from e-crime Congress 2007- reference to iDovos", is to a sponsor banner in which Mantissa is noted. The remaining links are not much better, including several symposium participant lists in which Mantissa is one of dozens. The best link appears to be this, conference notes, which include an description of a Mantissa employee's presentation. However, this is clearly incidental to the coverage of the conference as a whole and is from a low credibility source. While it certainly appears that such an old software company should have better media coverage, such coverage does not appear to actually exist. Notability is thus not established. - BanyanTree 02:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Mantissa corporation

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

It seems to me to be promotional. The company is small (the are only distribution agents in other countries) and the article it's a list and a description of products. The overview is a descriotion of strategies and new products. The footnotes are referenced to pages of websites and the links are autoreferential. In this state it's not relevant for Wikipedia. --Ilario 10:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm not sure what to do with it, since I think it could be upgraded/improved by someone who had the time. ~ G1ggy!  ...chatterbox... 10:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In reference to Ilario's above comment: Understand your concern. However, you will note the absence of any qualifying adjectives, e.g. good product or bad product. Products are merely described, not evaluated in terms of quality. In this, it seems to me that this page differs little from other corporate Wikipedia entries (see BMC, Computer Associates, etc)...Sathrif 17:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that an user has inserted this article in different Wikipedias and it is the his single contribution. I think that could be an "organized" spamming. --Ilario 12:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, weakly. This business may well be notable; it is a software company founded in 1980, which makes it as old as the Pyramids.  The description given of the company is refreshingly readable and reasonably free from buzzwords, if not jargon.  But if it were to be kept reliable sources would be needed to support the assertions in text; the instant article refers to nothing but the company's official website and press releases it has issued.  Delete if these issues are not addressed.  If kept, move to Mantissa Corporation for standard capitalisation of a proper noun.  - Smerdis of Tlön 14:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In reference to Ilario's above comment: No organized spamming campaign is underway, just a simple, even if clumsy, individual attempt on my part to translate the material into multiple languages. However, I recognize the challenges to maintaining NPOV in regards to corporate pages, and would welcome any attempt at improving upon that aspect before summarily cancelling it. Also, as I've stated in my responses to your calls for cancellation in it:wikipediaand fr:wikipedia, no automatic translations have been employed here. As for it being my sole contribution, that is true, I am bran new to Wikipedia and therefore defer to the judgment of the Wikipedia community...Sathrif 17:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sources?There are two sources listed only as "online article" from findarticles,, but that is not a source, the source is the journal or other publication to which access is provided--all online articles are not equal. In this case they are both from Marketwire, which is not altogether free of reliance upon PR. I see no truly independent sources. DGG' 03:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. I'm unable to find any news articles related to this company.  Claims of notability don't count for much without independent sources...But as a message for Sathrif, if you could but find a couple articles from a major news source (major newspaper, news station, magazine, the AP) supporting the notability claims, then there would be little to delete this for.  POV is fixable.  Someguy1221 09:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * -Understood, and I appreciate everyone's input and guidance here. I will see if I can find some more effective references...Sathrif 14:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Have inserted additional links in an effort to address concerns as to whether or not this article meets notability standards. Again, thanks for all of your input...Sathrif 20:51, 8 May 2007 (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.