Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opus Software Solutions


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Opus Software Solutions

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Concern that fails WP:CORP, in particular WP:CORPDEPTH due to sourcing issues (new refs are dead links, primaries and other issues listed at talk) (3x COI advert promo editors so Notability/POV needs scrutiny) Widefox ; talk 12:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  13:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  13:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep -One needs to re-write the article from scratch though. The subject appears to be meeting WP:GNG and WP:NCORP standard for they have been written about in multiple mainstream secondary, independent and reliable sources, such as, Business Standard, The Hindu Businessline, Times of India, Times of India-2, NDTV and, , , , , , (highbeam -, , , , -first5searchresults.) etc. There must be many more that I've not found at this time. If wants to see more, I may try finding them.  Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  10:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Which of those don't fall short of WP:CORPDEPTH? ... The first ones do... Business Standard, The Hindu Businessline , Times of India . Widefox ; talk 11:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Many, in particular Highbeam ones,, and . I'm sorry if you've no access to them. If have please take a look at them. Btw, are you saying these sources do not satisfy Wikipedia's GNG and NCOPR standard? However, the exclusion criteria in COREDEPTH close to these sources, is "brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business". I'm not sure if one should call it "brief", as they are published full-page in all mainstream reliable sources as "OPUS leading software provider company[..]", it actually is significant. To me, many of these seem to be meeting the COREDEPTH standard as well.  Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  16:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * They're all PR so not independent anyhow, but looking closer... "trivial" per "routine notices",  per "simple statements",  per broad "routine communiqués". This is whack-a-mole, and indicates the opposite of what you're trying to establish. There may be some RS, but these aren't them, and now would be the time to produce them if they exist.  Widefox ; talk 23:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * all PR? I'm sorry but I disagree. Let the afd run its course. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  08:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The quotes are where they are classified as trivial per WP:CORPDEPTH. Widefox ; talk 21:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You said they are not independent as they 'all are PR', what did you mean by PR there, if not 'press-releases'? If you see all sources as PR, then at first there's no meaning to discuss it with you and I doubt that you'll see COREDEPTH in them. Well, we are not alone. Let other people judge them. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  03:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, "PR" is too strong, coming back to the nom... "trivial" per CORPDEPTH. (btw "COREDEPTH" does not exist). As to how much emphasis to put on "brief" or "routine" in CORPDEPTH is debateable. Widefox ; talk 09:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - Anupmehra has provided several (undeniably) reliable sources that cover the subject in depth. They are most certainly not press releases.  There are outlets the simply reproduce press releases, but these aren't them.  When the Times of India, for example, chooses to publish a story they are putting their reputation behind it, and can be presumed to have fact-checked it.  Even if the material was spurred by a PR, it is not a PR by any reasonable definition; it is a choice that reflects notability. For good measure, here is another -article in the WSJ, the world's #1 business newspaper.  And beore someone says something stupid like "that's about ElectraCard, not Opus Software" non-notable businesses do not produce notable products. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well the statement that the sources are undeniable isn't correct - as someone has denied they are valid, and quoted exactly where they fall short. Widefox ; talk 21:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If you are going to claim the Times of India and The Hindu are unreliable sources, you are wasting everyone's time. I seriously doubt that is really the argument you are trying to make.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are RS, but by focussing on the publisher being a RS, that doesn't address the nom - i.e. these two are "trivial" per WP:CORPDEPTH - Times of India per "brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business", The Hindu per "routine communiqués". The nom is clear - WP:CORPDEPTH - not just finding 2x RS. Widefox ; talk 09:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I said they were undeniably reliable sources and you said it wasn't undeniable. I figured that isn't what you really meant, as I said in my reply...  And no the Times coverage is neither brief, nor routine.  Five paragraphs is not brief!  Making such arguments stretches the credibility of the guidelines.  The Hindu coverage can reasonably be describe as brief.  Neither can remotely be described as "press releases" as you initially claimed.  Fortunately there are a half dozen other in depth articles listed in this AfD, including one from the world's premier business source, the Wall Street Journal.  And there are literally hundreds more valid sources available.
 * A "brief announcement of a merger or sale of part of the business" is a couple sentence blurb, usually as part of a larger article detailing many such transactions. (Some business papers publish lists of transactions.)  It does not, and was never intended to mean all coverage about sales/mergers is excluded.  Such transactions (together with earnings) are the core of business news.   If they were excluded, almost every non-consumer product business in existence would be "non-notable".  In depth coverage about sales is just as valid as in depth coverage about anything else.  And once again, the articles may have been spurred by a sale, but do cover other aspects of the business as background material.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Essentially all the sources are press releases, mostly in the form of mere announcements. I agree that the GNG is not very helpful in these cases, because the reliability of so many of the sources is subject to interpretation. We are badly in need of objective criteria of importance.  DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * An interesting point User:DGG. Reports put it generally at 55%-80% churnalism. There is/was a tool at churnalism.com, maybe we need our own tool, a mod of dupdetector? Widefox ; talk 13:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Such an argument loses any credibility at all when even the Wall Street Journal is lumped in the category of "essentially press releases". You might as well say that only consumer product businesses can be notable if that's the route you are going to take.  No other type of business is going to have articles written about anything other than their activities.  (Well maybe if they commit a crime, but that certainly shouldn't be the standard.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not understanding how differentiating B2B / B2C, or activities logically follow, or if empirically true about articles written for types of businesses. This is about simply about independence of a particular source (which may be more the spirit, than the current practice of RS). Note: there's two WSJ EXT, one is dead. Widefox ; talk 11:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What I mean, is if article about business deals, expansion, earnings/financials, etc. are automatically excluded as "PR driven" even when published by cream of the crop sources, then what does leave? Articles about products (which normally only are written about B2C companies), articles about criminal investigations, and maybe a rare miscellaneous story.  The point is, stories about business activities are perfectly valid to prove notability of a business.  The WSJ does not publish "press releases", yet DGG has implicitly said it does by excluding its articles about Opus Software Solutions' business transactions.  Such a standard is nonsense, and would lead to to deletion of almost every B2B business article.  (FWIW, Factiva turns up 140 unique sources (of course not all are in depth coverage) that aren't classified as press releases, including 15 Times of India, 12 Reuters, and 8 The Hindu articles.  Indian sources generally have poor coverage online, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. "Deadlinks" also don't take away the validity of the coverage.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Nobody is proposing rejecting all those types of business articles - just the churnalism ones. That may not be common practice, but would be useful for determining independence of a particular RS (rather than automatically assuming all RS publishers are independent, as they should be). I agree with DGG, without an objective tool (the one at http://churnalism.com is for UK only), this is a subjective, and we may just have to agree to differ. Widefox ; talk 21:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There are 13 stories from Reuters alone, so even if every other story was a copy of from there (they aren't), they'll would still be plenty of RS coverage. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * (offtopic) I used dup detector at Talk:Nyu Media to manually detect the churnalism there. Widefox ; talk 22:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * a clarification: I said "essentially all the sources" not all the sources. People in the industry tell me that the acme of good PR is to get articles about the client written by high quality sources independently, based on their suggestions. I cannot figure out how to deal with such a situation in terms of our notability criteria, which is one reason I dislike our use of  the GNG and wish we had more objective standards.   Incidentally,  since the question was raised, I do not classify any Indian newspaper I know about as reliable for the notability of business or entertainment topics.
 * And, fwiw, that articles in one newspaper are copied from another or at least based on them is usually obvious, and can be seen by close inspection of the entire text, not just a summary. To be considered non-independent sources for the GNG, literal copying in the sense we useit for  copyvio is not needed   DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Those are some interesting, and IMO unfair, criteria. Fortunately/unfortunately, none of them are within current guidelines.  Indian papers are perfectly valid (and no Times of India didn't repeat the same story 15x) and nothing allows us to discount sources because we think they might have been written at the request of a PR firm.  Whatever the inspiration for writing a story was, the fact remains that an independent reliable source put their reputation behind the story.  When enough such sources do it, that makes the subject notable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete - too many press releases, directory entries, dead links; too much public relations.  If after 10 minutes I can't find a reliable source, at best it's time to delete and let the authors start from scratch.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 21:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you read my comments? I directly linked to several RS.  Even if the article currently uses "too many" inferior sources, AfD is not for cleanup. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 13:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: Sources are direct or regurgitated press releases. Vrac (talk) 14:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, this is just a blind assumption with no basis in fact. Reuters and the Wall Street Journal do not publish press releases in any form.  (It is very doubtful that Times of India or The Hindu does either.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * A good example is this: where Reuters is regurgitating a press release from Mastercard.  The only "value-add" to the press release is the fact that Reuters chose to regurgitate it.  In my opinion that's not enough to satisfy the significant coverage part of GNG.  A better case for notability could be made from these:   (apologies if someone already posted them, I didn't see them in my brief check of the links above, but they are definitely not used as sourced in the article). Vrac (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I really don't think the first link is a press release, although you are correct it is probably not a good case for notability since it is not analysis. Maybe there is difference of terminology here.  To me, publishing a press release includes publishing the company's chosen wording, not merely publishing on the same subject...  The best case for notability is that the WSJ covered the deal with MasterCard.  The WSJ doesn't cover deals by non-notable businesses, period.  The second best case is in depth coverage of ElectraCard (pre-MasterCard purchase) such as the two you proved plus others:  and others. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ElectraCard is not the topic. Opus Software Solutions is. You need coverage of the topic of the article not what they produce. Marksterdam (talk) 13:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: I went through this thread very carefully and I followed all the links and I'm not seeing in depth coverage of the company. It's really that simple. Let's not get disctracted by the churnalism/PR stuff. We need in depth coverage of the subject of the article. And yes products and companies are different. Thanks - Marksterdam (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So is your position that ElectraCard (product) is notable, but Opus Software Solutions (company) is not? That seems like a rather pointless distinction.  You are essentially saying "delete because of the name of the article only" if that is your position. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not saying that. What I am saying is what I have said. Products and producers are different. Your source is not about the subject of the article. Please refresh your memory regarding WP:GNG - To quote: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly". I didn't say anything about the article title or anything about the product being notable. That would be a different topic which I haven't investigated and neither do I have to as it isn't the topic of the article in question. Marksterdam (talk) 12:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't need to "refresh my memory" as I am well versed in deletion discussions, thanks. A product is an aspect of a business (the most important one, even).  To say a product can be notable, but the business that produces it is not is nonsense.  We can cover the product at a page named "ElectraCard" or a page named "Opus Software Solutions" equally well.  The difference is the first title restricts the scope to just the product whereas the second allows all aspects of the business to be covered.  Generally, it is better to cover products at a parent company page unless that is not feasible for space reasons.  Just because a product is notable does not mean it needs its own page, and it certainly doesn't mean we should delete the main company page and keep a product page because most of the coverage is about product rather than the business as a whole. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If you can find something in Wikipedia that says we need to consider companies who produce notable products as notable themselves then please let me know. Or else, it's once again, your opinion and pure conjecture. Something like this exists in WP:AUTH where we can look at person's work - books etc. - and if they get significant in-depth coverage we can consider the author notable. WP:CORP does not. Here is a notable product where the company is not notable. However, and once again, I have never said the product is notable at all to begin with. I have not investigated that and nor does anybody here have to as it is not the topic of the debate. Based on your sources, it could be. Who knows. It's not relevant to this debate though.  Marksterdam (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course my stated opinion is my opinion - there are no requirements (outside a few core policies) on Wikipedia, just guidelines. Products are part of a company.  If a part of a subject is notable, the subject is notable.  A person, for example, is not non-notable because "only" their work is covered in RS while their personal life is ignored.  If a product is synonymous with a corporation (e.g your example of Foxit Reader with Foxit Corporation), sure makes sense to have the article named after the product.  (The alternative naming would also be OK.) If, however, the articles was named Foxit Corporation and nominated for deletion (while no Foxit Reader article existed) it would make no sense to say "the product may be notable, but I can't be bothered to check, so just delete the Foxit Corporation because the name of the corporation doesn't appear as prominently in news articles as the name of the product".  That is essentially the argument you are making here.  You have decided, based on your opinion only (i.e. having no more weight than my argument), that a corporation can't be notable for a product.  And have gone further to state you can't be bothered to determine if the product is notable.
 * Well, I'll give you a hint: the product is notable. So now the question is what is the best way to handle the material.  Option 1 is to delete Opus Software Solutions and create a new ElectraCard Services page.  Option 2 is to keep Opus Software Solutions.  (Option 3 of having both would be overkill.)  A significant portion of the 100+ sources found on Factia are, in fact, about aspects of Opus other than ElectraCard.  ElectraCard is (was) the main product of Opus, and Opus would most likely be non-notable without it, but it is not synonymous with Opus.  Thus, the most logical arrangement of material is to have an Opus page which ElectraCard redirects to (the opposite naming as Foxit Corporation -> Foxit Reader, but for the same reason - there is not enough notability for two articles, but is enough for one.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You say about me: "You have decided, based on your opinion only .. that a corporation can't be notable for a product.". Not true at all, and I never stated that. Please refrain from attempting to dictate/frame the debate or to rephrase what I have said to suit your argument. Once again, I said what I said, others can read that without your interpretation! It is just tiresome to have to say "No, I said x not y" and it doesn't help this debate or any other as people have to go though the same points again and again. I have simply stated that there are guidelines in WP:CORP that unlike WP:AUTH do not say that when a product is notable so is the company by default. Unlike you, once again, I'm sticking to the guidelines. Admins are advised to ignore arguments based on conjecture so I like to steer clear of that. Of course, there will be many instances where a company's product or products are so notable that the company itself gets a lot in depth independent coverage. Here the company is not getting that coverage - only the product. I cannot be more clear than that.


 * You also say "You have gone further to state you can't be bothered to determine if the product is notable." Once again, no I have not stated that, I have stated that the subject of the debate is the company. I said we do not have to research the product but the company. Once again, the company is the subject of the debate. Marksterdam (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Kettle, black. We clearly are failing to understand each other, as I didn't say what you claim I said.  Maybe you should take your own advice and "refrain from attempting to dictate/frame the debate or to rephrase what I have said to suit your argument."  My argument is that products are a part of a business and coverage about said products makes the business and/or product notable.  Whether the article should be named after the company or the product is a matter of editorial discretion, not something dictated by policy.  And yes, you are refusing to evaluate the notability of the product so I am not sure why you are objecting to me saying as much.  You think the product notability is irrelevant; I think it is highly relevant; either way, you certainly have refused to evaluate the product's notability. (And again, many of the sources both listed and unlisted are NOT about ElectraCard.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * We are not failing to understand each other. I, at least, understand your point completely but it is wrong and not based on guidelines. Also, I don't see how I can be miss-quoting you when I use direct quotations. Odd. Once again, the product notability would only be relevant if it meant that the company itself got extensive coverage. As the company is the subject of the debate. The company is not getting that coverage. Only the product. I've read through everything posted here. Nothing is in depth about the company. And once again, Wikipedia has no guidelines to say that a notable product equals a notable company by default.


 * And once again you are trying to dictate the terms of the debate/limit the available options by suggesting that it's simply a matter of naming the article differently. It isn't. If the article was about the product, it would be a completely different article. If that article were created, I believe there is chance that it could pass WP:GNG but I don't know. I would approach that subject without prejudice, but it is a different subject matter. Marksterdam (talk) 08:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to "dictate" anything no matter how many times you state I am. If anyone is trying to do that, it is you. I have stated my opinion, you have stated yours.  It's as simply as that.  Why you insist on assuming bad faith on my part, I don't know. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment WP:PRODUCT is explicit that WP:NOTINHERITED does apply to notable products from non-notable companies. ThaddeusB Marksterdam: I added a link from WP:INHERITORG to make this easier to find.
 * User:ThaddeusB, your assertion that the product is notable is not relevant for the notability of the organisation per the notability guideline, and pushing that invalid argument isn't helping here. Widefox ; talk 13:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My position should be entirely clear, but I'll state it again. ElectraCard is main source of coverage and is notable by itself.  However, Opus Software has a lot of other coverage that does not mention ElectraCard, and is notable by itself.  Two articles is overkill. The most logical place to cover both at once is at Opus Software, even though ElectraCard has more coverage.  Can we please stop trying to distort my opinion now (and notability guidelines for that matter)?  For someone who supposedly hates it when people "dictate" what another person's opinion is, you sure do a lot of dictating  --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Widefox for making the case clear. ThaddeusB please note that I didn't write the above comment to which you seem to be replying but it was Widefox. Regarding the word "dictate" I said you were "dictating the terms of the debate" by using logical fallacies to set up alternatives which in actual fact don't address the issue at hand. Please don't get hung up on it. You say "Opus Software has a lot of other coverage that does not mention ElectraCard". Note that we need direct in-depth coverage of the subject. I have looked at the references provided and I don't see that direct in-depth coverage of Opus Software. Going by the length of this debate and the apparent passion exhibited therein I believe that every effort has been made to find it. However, I cannot see it. Thank you. Marksterdam (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment At least to me, this company only seems notable because MasterCard bought one of their subsidiaries. Does this warrant an article on Opus Software Solutions? Piboy51 (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As in "not notable" per WP:INHERITORG "A corporation is not notable merely because it owns notable subsidiaries."  Widefox ; talk 14:10, 4 January 2015 (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.