Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UC4


 * 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. JForget 03:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

UC4

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

More WP:ARTSPAM from the producer of Dragon View (software). The claimed IDC paper is actually a whitepaper written by the company itself. Pcap ping  22:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  22:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  22:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable mentions in reliable sources. LotLE × talk  00:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not convinced. Among the plethora of press releases, I found this 2005 story in the Denver Business Journal, which wrote that the company had 25 employees and "$11 million in sales for the first quarter". I'll look for more sources, but the current article clearly fails to convey the fact that this is a small company. Pcap ping  00:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The company also had an article in the de.wiki (this is a German-based company that extended its operations to the US) but it got deleted after this deletion discussion there. The criteria for inclusion of companies is much more stringent then here, basically it got deleted because the company was too small, no objective financial data could be obtained because it's privately owned, and it was covered only by press releases. Pcap ping  01:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I looked through the German news.google.de archive and all I could find is a slew of press releases. The above-mentioned IDC report is also basically just a press release by the company. At this point we have nothing to base an article on. AxelBoldt (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Like AxelBoldt, the significant coverage I've found hasn't been in independent, reliable sources (and what little coverage there is in independent sources isn't at all significant).  I certainly haven't come across anything sufficient to establish notability.   Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 08:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The external links in the article are all blogs and user forums. We don't judge notability on that. Miami33139 (talk) 06:20, 13 January 2010 (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.