Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sevana


 * 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.  Sandstein  07:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sevana

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. Finnish company with no assertion of notability. Delete.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 18:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - As the original PRODer. The article was just slightly beyond WP:CSD. Two Russian patents and one product simply do not meet WP:CORP. No problem with the company's page being recreated once notability is established. §FreeRangeFrog 18:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - More software company spam. --Quartermaster (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not spam at all just that the software was claimed to be really radically new in the audio quality field as it basically works in automating audio quality.Even original PRODer says it was just slightly beyond WP:CSD . But What does "Russian " patent mean ?? Cost of filing patents is more expensive in EU.I find the Qyartermaster's talk to be cursory and dismissive while the Original Proder seems a bit biased on the Russianess of the patent even though he admits it is just slightly beyond WP:CSD . Also it is wrong that there is one product - I have mentioned three products including Document management System, Association rules for market basket analysis and the audio quality product. --Audiovocal (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have also added more references now and edited to include the existing products. --Audiovocal (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - My point about the article being just slightly north of WP:CSD doesn't mean I didn't think it should be deleted, just that it wasn't eligible for deletion under those specific guidelines, which are very strict (for good reasons). And don't give too much importance to the "Russian patent" part - they could be US patents or Canadian patents or Palau patents. It doesn't matter where they were awarded, the point is that the company isn't notable to begin with, and your recent edits seem to indicate you're shifting to "this company might be important because of their patents", which is also normally not acceptable as an assertion of notability. We're not trying to make your life difficult here :) This might be an important topic for you, but that doesn't mean it's encyclopedic or otherwise worthy of inclusion. No one here is against the recreation of the page once the company is notable. Wikipedia is intended to document importance, not establish it. §FreeRangeFrog 20:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ok.I dont get it still but its okay.I still think it is an important company in russian-finland software or in audio testing software but notability would need to be established by a resident of those countries I suppose. --Audiovocal (talk) 07:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. No, it's obvious from this comment that you do not understand the very concept we are talking about. See what we mean by "notability." What was said is that since the company's importance, or notoriety, has not been established outside Wikipedia, Wikipedia won't have an article about it. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 23:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * agreed now. it seems not notable enough. agree to delete. do we have a quantifiable procedure for notability like so many third party resources etc. clearly niche organizations need to be bigger and then have a wiki page. agree to delete. sorry for the bother. this was my first page. sigh --Audiovocal (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. We find as many independent reliable sources as we can find, and we evaluate them to see whether their coverage of the subject is a trivial passing mention in discussion of something else, or an in-depth discussion of the subject at hand.  It's a matter of seeing how much (potential) encyclopaedic information a source supports, whether a subject is better addressed in some other way than an article of its own (because that's what the sources themselves do), and whether independent sources even exist at all.  The measure is not of whether something is a "niche" subject.  Plenty of "niche" subjects, from (some) individual asteroids to (some) individual railway stations, are covered in depth in multiple independent published works within their respective disciplines.  Notability doesn't equate to fame, significance, or importance.  It's governed by the depths and provenances of the sources available for the specific subject at hand.  It's the extent to which a subject has been noted, demonstrating that it is notable.  Read User:Uncle G/On notability. Uncle G (talk) 15:28, 21 February 2009 (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.