Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Synaptop


 * 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. No further comments after two relistings. Nonetheless, the lack of independent sourcing is an issue that has not been resolved. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Synaptop

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lack of high-quality sources for this company/product indicates a lack of notability. Search on Google Books and Google Scholar return no relevant results. Search on Google News bring back a handful of hits, but none from highly respected sources. SJK (talk) 03:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SJK (talk) 03:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SJK (talk) 03:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, good point. But the reason that Google lacks content is that our content is protected behind a strict paywall. Articles are published in Flash and are not Google-searchable.

The Globe and Mail is Canada's largest newspaper so I think it is a reasonable source to cite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodbentley (talk • contribs) 17:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

We have thousands of news articles in our archives and publish dozens, six times a week.

We sell all content for $30 per month to 9,700 customers.

Thanks,

Woodbentley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodbentley (talk • contribs) 17:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment . If you believe there are independent, reliable sources sufficient to establish the notability of the company per Wikipedia's guidelines on company notability, please let us know what they are. Note that information published by the company itself (e.g. company website, press releases) is insufficient to establish notability. Looking at the sources currently on the page, I see:
 * References (2) and (5) are self-published, so can't be used to establish notability. That leaves us with references (1), (3) and (4), which are from thenextweb.com, marsdd.com, and techvibes.com. Of the three, only The Next Web appears well-known enough to have a Wikipedia article; but still, the article contains no information usable to establish its reliability (e.g. if any of its staff have won, e.g. journalism awards, that has gone unnoticed, nor is there any indication they have any special expertise e.g. relevant academic positions; it is not associated with or sponsored by any respected institution such as a professional association such as the IEEE, etc.) None of these are well-known or highly respected sources – they are not major newspapers, they are not peer-reviewed journals, etc. Given that, I don't think the sourcing is strong enough to establish this company/products notability. If you have better quality sources than those currently in the article, please share the details. You mention the Globe and Mail – I think that is a respected enough newspaper that a detailed article on this company in it would support notability (although I think we'd want more than just one newspaper) – but beyond asserting it covers this company you haven't provided any citations or quotes to demonstrate it actually does. SJK (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * References (2) and (5) are self-published, so can't be used to establish notability. That leaves us with references (1), (3) and (4), which are from thenextweb.com, marsdd.com, and techvibes.com. Of the three, only The Next Web appears well-known enough to have a Wikipedia article; but still, the article contains no information usable to establish its reliability (e.g. if any of its staff have won, e.g. journalism awards, that has gone unnoticed, nor is there any indication they have any special expertise e.g. relevant academic positions; it is not associated with or sponsored by any respected institution such as a professional association such as the IEEE, etc.) None of these are well-known or highly respected sources – they are not major newspapers, they are not peer-reviewed journals, etc. Given that, I don't think the sourcing is strong enough to establish this company/products notability. If you have better quality sources than those currently in the article, please share the details. You mention the Globe and Mail – I think that is a respected enough newspaper that a detailed article on this company in it would support notability (although I think we'd want more than just one newspaper) – but beyond asserting it covers this company you haven't provided any citations or quotes to demonstrate it actually does. SJK (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * References (2) and (5) are self-published, so can't be used to establish notability. That leaves us with references (1), (3) and (4), which are from thenextweb.com, marsdd.com, and techvibes.com. Of the three, only The Next Web appears well-known enough to have a Wikipedia article; but still, the article contains no information usable to establish its reliability (e.g. if any of its staff have won, e.g. journalism awards, that has gone unnoticed, nor is there any indication they have any special expertise e.g. relevant academic positions; it is not associated with or sponsored by any respected institution such as a professional association such as the IEEE, etc.) None of these are well-known or highly respected sources – they are not major newspapers, they are not peer-reviewed journals, etc. Given that, I don't think the sourcing is strong enough to establish this company/products notability. If you have better quality sources than those currently in the article, please share the details. You mention the Globe and Mail – I think that is a respected enough newspaper that a detailed article on this company in it would support notability (although I think we'd want more than just one newspaper) – but beyond asserting it covers this company you haven't provided any citations or quotes to demonstrate it actually does. SJK (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * References (2) and (5) are self-published, so can't be used to establish notability. That leaves us with references (1), (3) and (4), which are from thenextweb.com, marsdd.com, and techvibes.com. Of the three, only The Next Web appears well-known enough to have a Wikipedia article; but still, the article contains no information usable to establish its reliability (e.g. if any of its staff have won, e.g. journalism awards, that has gone unnoticed, nor is there any indication they have any special expertise e.g. relevant academic positions; it is not associated with or sponsored by any respected institution such as a professional association such as the IEEE, etc.) None of these are well-known or highly respected sources – they are not major newspapers, they are not peer-reviewed journals, etc. Given that, I don't think the sourcing is strong enough to establish this company/products notability. If you have better quality sources than those currently in the article, please share the details. You mention the Globe and Mail – I think that is a respected enough newspaper that a detailed article on this company in it would support notability (although I think we'd want more than just one newspaper) – but beyond asserting it covers this company you haven't provided any citations or quotes to demonstrate it actually does. SJK (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * References (2) and (5) are self-published, so can't be used to establish notability. That leaves us with references (1), (3) and (4), which are from thenextweb.com, marsdd.com, and techvibes.com. Of the three, only The Next Web appears well-known enough to have a Wikipedia article; but still, the article contains no information usable to establish its reliability (e.g. if any of its staff have won, e.g. journalism awards, that has gone unnoticed, nor is there any indication they have any special expertise e.g. relevant academic positions; it is not associated with or sponsored by any respected institution such as a professional association such as the IEEE, etc.) None of these are well-known or highly respected sources – they are not major newspapers, they are not peer-reviewed journals, etc. Given that, I don't think the sourcing is strong enough to establish this company/products notability. If you have better quality sources than those currently in the article, please share the details. You mention the Globe and Mail – I think that is a respected enough newspaper that a detailed article on this company in it would support notability (although I think we'd want more than just one newspaper) – but beyond asserting it covers this company you haven't provided any citations or quotes to demonstrate it actually does. SJK (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * References (2) and (5) are self-published, so can't be used to establish notability. That leaves us with references (1), (3) and (4), which are from thenextweb.com, marsdd.com, and techvibes.com. Of the three, only The Next Web appears well-known enough to have a Wikipedia article; but still, the article contains no information usable to establish its reliability (e.g. if any of its staff have won, e.g. journalism awards, that has gone unnoticed, nor is there any indication they have any special expertise e.g. relevant academic positions; it is not associated with or sponsored by any respected institution such as a professional association such as the IEEE, etc.) None of these are well-known or highly respected sources – they are not major newspapers, they are not peer-reviewed journals, etc. Given that, I don't think the sourcing is strong enough to establish this company/products notability. If you have better quality sources than those currently in the article, please share the details. You mention the Globe and Mail – I think that is a respected enough newspaper that a detailed article on this company in it would support notability (although I think we'd want more than just one newspaper) – but beyond asserting it covers this company you haven't provided any citations or quotes to demonstrate it actually does. SJK (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Referance (2) could easily be replaced with a different source that is not self published, as it's a reference to Dragon's Den. I've updated the referance to CBC's website, which gives the same information. 76.9.216.84 (talk) 17:59, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Dragons' Den (Canadian TV series) is a reality TV show. I don't think appearing in a reality TV show counts for much in establishing notability. (It's not the evening news.) SJK (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete at best for now as there's nothing suggesting better for the applicable notability and the notability improvements. SwisterTwister   talk  05:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:17, 8 May 2016 (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.