Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serato Audio Research


 * 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Serato Audio Research

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Written as an advertisement, the article relies heavily on primary sources and unreliable sources such as press/media releases. Fails WP:CORP Flat Out (talk) 06:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. An infomercial, presumably tended over the years by COI accounts. See also Scratch Live, brought to you by the same folks. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi all, I am an employee at Serato and the state of this page has been brought to my attention. The page is quite out of date and we would appreciate it if the deletion process could be expedited, or alternatively if someone could come in and edit the page. As a company we certainly fit the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability, including mentions in the New York Times. Please note: Much of this information is under the name Serato. We are hesitant to refresh this article ourselves, although it is detrimental to have it in this state of flux for too long. I implore you all to look at whether Serato deserves an entry in Wikipedia, rather than merely looking at the current state of the article. Thanks. Carlos Serato (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - NYTimes sources seem to be passing mentions. Flat Out (talk) 00:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes  13:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Hi Flat Out, Wikipedia:Notability defines a NYTimes source as "A single-sentence mention in an article about another company". Here is an example of one of these mentions: "As is the current norm, most of the D.J.’s used the computer program Serato, meaning they didn’t have to bring a crate of vinyl." Not only is this a credible, independent source, it highlights the notability of Serato. There are also multiple reliable secondary sources online that cover Serato and its products, as well as featuring in books such as DJing for Dummies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) uses this as a specific example of substantial coverage; "how-to guide written by people wholly independent of the company or product (e.g. For Dummies)". Once again I do not want to get too involved in the editing as I am aware of the issues that a COI present. However, it would be great to get some other admins and editors to weigh in on this process as having all these warning flags on our page is not a good look. Thanks. --Carlos Serato (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Response You are misinterpreting both WP:NCORP reference. For example, NCORP points out that "A single-sentence mention in an article about another company" (even in the NYT) *fails* the criteria for establishing notability. Also, NCORP states "This page is to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services, is a valid subject" and since the topic is the organization (and not the Serato product) then product reviews don't meet the criteria for notability of the organization. Perhaps though the product is notable if there are enough references.  HighKing++ 14:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Also fails WP:GNG, the search provided above re: the NYT shows nothing on the first page that indicates subject is more than trivial mention in an article. Ifnord (talk) 02:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per HighKing's rationale, as well as nomination, and Ifnord rationales. --1l2l3k (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2018 (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.