Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Route 66 (company)


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Route 66 (company)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Zero refs. Appears non-notable, and tagged as such for over a year. Epeefleche (talk) 23:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per nom. Tinton5 (talk) 01:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep – Per reviews in respected, reliable sources, also mentions in other reliable sources, which qualify this stub article:
 * This article would benefit from more sourcing. Adding rescue tag to it. Northamerica1000 (talk) 02:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Struck my !vote to keep, per WP:PRODUCT, ..."Note that a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right. In this case, an article on the product may be appropriate, and notability of the company itself is not inherited as a result." Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for revisiting the discussion and reconsidering. Goodvac (talk) 05:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I welcome the tagging of the article for rescue, even though I nominated it, because I think that if articles are in fact notable they should be kept. I'm of course more than a little confused, therefore, that you followed your above comment and tagging by nominating the tag itself for deletion ... which nomination has resulted in the deletion of the tag that you added to this article.  Anyway, perhaps that is the law of unintended consequences.  Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The templates for discussion nomination regarding the rescue template was procedural, per ongoing qualms about the template, to obtain community consensus about its existence. The community's consensus was to delete it. Northamerica1000 (talk) 05:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Struck my !vote to keep, per WP:PRODUCT, ..."Note that a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right. In this case, an article on the product may be appropriate, and notability of the company itself is not inherited as a result." Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for revisiting the discussion and reconsidering. Goodvac (talk) 05:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I welcome the tagging of the article for rescue, even though I nominated it, because I think that if articles are in fact notable they should be kept. I'm of course more than a little confused, therefore, that you followed your above comment and tagging by nominating the tag itself for deletion ... which nomination has resulted in the deletion of the tag that you added to this article.  Anyway, perhaps that is the law of unintended consequences.  Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The templates for discussion nomination regarding the rescue template was procedural, per ongoing qualms about the template, to obtain community consensus about its existence. The community's consensus was to delete it. Northamerica1000 (talk) 05:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment – Also, this nomination for deletion seems to possibly be based upon a lack of references that were in the article, rather than upon a search for them, per WP:BEFORE. If this is the case, please consider searching for sources prior to nominating articles for deletion. Thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000 (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi NA. To clarify, I did seek to find substantial RS coverage, and was unable to.  The absence of substantial non-trivial independent RS coverage -- rather than the absence of such coverage in the article -- is as you say the key point, though it is noteworthy that the article itself failed to supply any such refs either, as that is the first place many of us look for support of the inherent claim to notability made when an article creator seeks to create the article.  Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification, and likewise, best to you. Northamerica1000 (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete This company fails WP:CORP. The sources provided by do not constitute significant coverage.
 * "Route 66 Mobile 7: Use your mobile for satellite navigation" from CNET is a review of one of Route 66's products. The article provides no information about the company itself. WP:PRODUCT states, "[A] specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right. In this case, an article on the product may be appropriate, and notability of the company itself is not inherited as a result." (my bolding) Companies do not inherit notability from their products.
 * "330 Auto Navigation" from PC World is the same as the CNET source—focus is on the product, not the company.
 * "TomTom Falls 11% on 'Broadly Flat' Earnings Forecast" from Bloomberg Businessweek is a passing mention:"The Dutch company said Feb. 14 that navigation company Route 66 started a mapping and navigation application for Google Inc.'s Android handset system using TomTom's maps."This article provides no significant coverage of Route 66.
 * "HTC unveils new smartphones, pushes into services" from Reuters is another passing mention:"HTC's mapping offering, built together with navigation software firm Route 66, enables ..."No significant coverage.
 * I have conducted a search at Google News Archive with the terms "Route 66" "navigation", the results of which are either reports of announcements from the company or articles about the company's products. Delete as failing WP:CORP because of the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Goodvac (talk) 07:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep changed to Weak Keep - there are clearly several substantial reviews of Route 66 products, for example the PC World (Australia) and this one in ComputerActive Magazine. The products seem to have been noticed, globally, over an extended period. WP:CORP seems to accept both coverage of the company and/or the products (similarly to a filmmaker or artist being notable on the back of a notable creation). Obviously, these sources need to be incorporated into the stub, rather than dumped in a list at the bottom... Sionk (talk) 01:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Reviews of a company's products do not make a company notable. Where does it say at WP:CORP that coverage of products justifies an article about the company? WP:PRODUCT (a subsection of WP:CORP) specifically states that companies do not inherit notability from their products. Goodvac (talk) 02:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep A company is notable based on what it does or has created. Just like a writer is notable if there are reviews for their bestselling novels.   D r e a m Focus  07:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you read the discussion above? "WP:PRODUCT (a subsection of WP:CORP) specifically states that companies do not inherit notability from their products." Goodvac (talk) 07:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 01:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * In response to the above comments by Goodvac, I would agree the subject is very borderline and have changed my 'vote'. However, common sense is recommended for interpreting WP guidelines. Though the coverage is not in-depth about the company, there is unarguably coverage in multiple, non-related sources. It could add up to significant coverage and therefore 'notability' in my view. Evidently the person that relisted this debate is in two minds as well! Sionk (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's borderline. The guideline clearly states that coverage of products does not contribute to the company's notability. The only information about the company in those sources is:
 * "navigation company Route 66"
 * "navigation software firm Route 66"
 * Route 66 released a number of navigation-related products.
 * Ultimately, all that can be drawn from those sources is that Route 66 develops navigation products. This is not significant coverage. Goodvac (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * With all respect, the guideline does not clearly state that at all. The guideline says "Note that a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right." It is quite an ambivalent statement. It definitely does not say "coverage of products does not contribute to the company's notability". Sionk (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see where we differ. Let me put it this way: the reviews of Route 66's products make the products notable. The guideline states, "an article on the product may be appropriate, and notability of the company itself is not inherited as a result". This is a case of inherited notability—just because the products have significant coverage (thus are notable) doesn't mean the company is notable. Goodvac (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point by Goodvac.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 2.  Snotbot   t • c »  06:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:CORP, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party reliable sources. Only one reference covers the company, others are focused on other companies and mention this one in passing if at all. RadioFan (talk) 13:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 03:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

 Keep Company seems notable enough that there are a few articles written about it, like this: "Route 66 Launches Mobile 7 for Windows Mobile Smartphones" Wireless News, 8 April 2005, 173 words, (English)Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC) 
 * Delete. For those who assert that this company is notable because of passing mentions (and one slightly more fleshed-out techblog review of one of the products offered by the company, rather than "this phone has an app made by Route 66"), why is it that the article doesn't even identify in what country the company is headquartered? Why is it that the bolded introduction of the article doesn't match the name of the company (it is the name of the company's Dutch offices)? What are the products offered by the company, and why are they notable? As several other editors have noted, there is no coverage of the company (at all, anywhere), and precious little about its products. One might be able to construct a WP:N-compliant article about the product reviewed by CNET and Geekzone (which appears to be the same product), but I don't see anything about the company in those two sources, or in the other citations dumped onto the article.  Horologium  (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Wifione  Message 19:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * delete some refs but very slight with nothing that I can see about the company; searching turns up nothing better. A tech company that's been around 20 years without receiving any significant coverage is definitely non-notable.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 18:50, 22 January 2012 (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.