Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SAKHR Software 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Baseball   Watcher  01:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

SAKHR Software Company

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The sourcing is so mediocre here that I'm unsure myself whether it meets our standards for notability. I don't want to judge falsely, but it's been unsuccessfully tagged for improvement since last year. Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  00:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I am trying to edit the page with relevant citations but the changes are automatically rejected, what do i do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manayer (talk • contribs) 13:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Arabic is of very high interest now, and a leading company for Arabic translation and software is likely to be interesting. Whether it is notable, and whether there is proper referencing, is an open question, but I would certainly want this article kept available for improvement. The use of copyrighted material is also a troubling element. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep It gets ample coverage. Click the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD to see plenty of it.  I read through the Business Week article about it, referenced in the article already, and its clearly notable.   D r e a m Focus  15:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What business week article are you referring to?--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The one in the article that says Businessweek. Look for it.  its not that hard to find.   D r e a m Focus  10:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: thin coverage, with the handful of hits on Google News appearing to be generally low-quality/bloggish and promotional, and generally mere-mentions from Google Books hits. As far as significant & reliable coverage the BW article appears to be all there is -- and is insufficient on its own. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Obviously notable - see this case study for example. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * For those who are wondering what this "obviously notable" mention is, this seems to be the right link. From what I can tell, it's nothing more than a mention in a less than one page section that cites it as a good example of an Arab franchise.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The link I provided shows the entire page; yours just provides a snippet. If the first link is not working for you then perhaps it's your browser or geolocation.  For those who can't read it, it is a summary of the company headed Sakhr Software.  There are 15 lines of good hard facts and numbers like sales, salaries, staff &c.  It is written in a neutral tone and so is an excellent source for our purposes.  There seem to be lots more sources of this quality to be found in Google Books because this company's work on machine translation of Arabic is quite advanced.  This is good evidence of notability.  Q.E.D Colonel Warden (talk) 06:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Click the page on the link I showed and it gives you the full text, along with a search showing it as the only mention of "Sakhr" in the source.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So, what of it? The source easily satisfies the requirements of WP:N and so we're good. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd hardly think so. Once again, it's a less than one page mention of the company, using it as an example of franchising in the Arab world. hardly significant coverage.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:SIGCOV tells us what is needed: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.. The source supplied in this case meets this requirement and there are plenty more such as Mass media, politics, and society in the Middle East.  There is therefore no case for deletion as ordinary editing may be used to improve the article per our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I never said it needed to be the main topic. But it's pretty obvious that,once again, a less than one page description using the company as an example is not significant.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * W delete I have removed the worst of the spam content, but would note that there seems to be a fair number of press links with content (including the Financial Times piece) that look suspiciously like recycled press releases, as is common in the IT industry. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Does the use of bare URLs rather than full inline citations affect whether this article is deleted? --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that's not a valid reason to delete something. Also, I doubt most people really care or even notice.   D r e a m Focus  12:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I put a comment on the talk page, asking for the bare URLs to be converted into inline citations, perhaps with archiving where needed. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The BusinessWeek article and the OECD-published book linked in the article and above demonstrate notability. Loads more such sources can be found by searching without the superfluous word "company": . Phil Bridger (talk) 19:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Reliable sources have been added, other improvements have been made, and this article should be Kept. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Not too sure if I should be commenting, since I created the page, but I don't think it should be deleted. Arabic is a notable topic of discussion and as far as I know, Sakhr is one of the first and only companies who have made a name for themselves in terms of machine translation, OCR, etc. I think it's important that something about the company stays on Wikipedia. Debolina Sengupta (talk) 04:55, 9 May 2011 (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.