Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/X-Systems


 * 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. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

X-Systems

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NCORP, borderline speedy A7. No independent sources listed and a search only revealed passing mentions, nothing in-depth. shoy (reactions) 17:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete allowing recreation if the company receives suficient coverage in the future. There are only refereces about some products, not the company. If at least two indepent references from reliable sources with in-depth coverage of the company not just a product are added to meet our notability requieremets for companies or our general notability guidelines I would change my vote. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    21:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    21:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment jamesdawn added more links to independent sources as requested by Wikipedians shoy and crystallizedcarbon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesDawn (talk • contribs) 18:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete until better can be applied. SwisterTwister   talk  04:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Page should stay in my opinion but edit severely ; as others are already doing seeing the history page. outdoormen — Preceding unsigned comment added by OutdoorMen (talk • contribs) 09:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep . I am willing to edit it and leave it open for a re-review should I get a week max. We can move the page in the interim too as an alternate option. I see the obvious problems of creating a page in hurry. Devopam (talk) 12:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete a weakly disguised advert--Petebutt (talk) 07:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have tried to edit the article. Please have a re-look when feasible. Devopam (talk) 07:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey thanks but it's still likely not enough but we can draft and userfy it to your userspace if you wish.  SwisterTwister   talk  07:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree, on the notability part definitely . If, the final decision goes for a Delete, then rather please move it to my userspace and I will try to enhance it with available info at a later moment. Devopam (talk) 07:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I have edited the article and hopefully improved it. The referencing could be better but the task is very difficult because of all the OS-X systems and the like. Given the current references, I think we should allow this article. gidonb (talk) 12:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete the sourcing is incredibly weak, self published material and product reviews. There is nothing in-depth about the company.  It just does not meet notability requirements. If this company disappears, are we even going to be able to find that out? Smallbones( smalltalk ) 14:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete (or userfy) - agree with Smallbones, the current sources are mostly minor, SPS or quotes of company statements. Maybe a deeper search within Dutch sources can reveal more information, or wait a while until the company has received more coverage. Looking through the article, some of its main claims would definitely need stronger sources too ("only" manufacturer - self-sourced, "X-Systems' products are HEXA-Proof" - unclear sourcing and certification background for only 1 product, "background of company name" - unsourced and a bit PR). I appreciate, that it's difficult to find sourcing for such specialist companies (and it is only 2 years old), but the topic seems to be WP:TOOSOON for now. GermanJoe (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: Company seem to be only dutch manufacturer of smart phones. But name of the company should be moved to X-Systems (company).-- Human 3015   TALK   00:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The company would appear not to be notable, as stated, but the sources indicate that one or more of its products may well qualify for inclusion. As a process matter, I would ask that we avoid recommending speedy deletion (even though A7 does in fact provide for organizations) except in the gravest of circumstances where WP:AGF has failed us and the integrity of the encyclopedia is at stake. To my mind, this is more of a case of mis-stated notability. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 01:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete and userfy as per 's request. Not enough coverage at the moment.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment In the 9 days that passed since this AfD has started, major improvements have been made in the referencing of this article. Hence I suggest that those who had earlier reached the conclusion that deletion may be in place, will review their opinions in light of its current references. It may even be in order to withdraw the nomination. As someone pointed out, it is not ok to speedy articles like this entry even before said improvements. gidonb (talk) 04:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I believe that the article still doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP only three of the references talk about the company rather than individual products, and of those none seem to be independent. The first is the corporate page, another is clearly and advertisement with a link to the corporate page (visit our page) and the third also looks like a paid promotional article. To justify keeping the the article at least two independent reliable sources with in-depth coverage of the company should be inserted. If they can´t be found at present time I suggest moving the article to the userspace of Devopam as requested so it can be recreated once the company receives the minimum coverage to meet our policies for inclusion.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Crystallizedcarbon, I have added even more references, mostly articles about the company! The article meets WP:NCORP. gidonb (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello : Please correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think that WP:NCORP or WP:GNG are met for this article. In both cases we need at least two independent(neutral) reliable sources with in-depth coverage of the company not just a product. Most of the sources in the article are not valid reliable sources, as many are just blogs. Additionally many of them are clearly promotional.
 * In the current version I see three references about the company and not individual products I don´t think any of them is valid to establish the company's notability:
 * "About X-Systems Brand". X-Systems: Links to the company page so it is not valid to establish notability.
 * "What Is X-Systems – All-Weather Rugged Quality". cryptbond.com: Broken link the site is no longer working.
 * "Xmap Systems: Navigation und Tracking" [Xmap Systems: Navigation and Tracking] (in German): Talks about products not the company.
 * "X-Systems Has Rugged Waterproof Phones And Tablets". Gizmo Editor: Even though it's a blog, it's author might be considered a reliable source for that field, but the article does not talk in depth about the company.
 * "X Map Systems Proudly Launches Lineup of Revolutionary Rugged Devices". Go Guides: Blog and clearly promotional article.
 * "X Systems: Stoere telefoons en tablets – gebouwd om lang mee te gaan!" [X systems: Tough phones and tablets - built to last!] (in Dutch). Enduro: Blog and clearly promotional article, it ends up to with a link to the corporate page that reads "visit our page".


 * To meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG I think we need at least two references from sources which are clearly reliable and with in-depth content, not promotional articles. I still think that this is probably a case of WP:TOOSOON as the company probably will receive the needed coverage to meet our guidelines in the future. what do you think? --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * OK you asked me to share with you where we disagree. Two articles, the first comes with the strongest disagreement:
 * "Xmap Systems: Navigation und Tracking" [Xmap Systems: Navigation and Tracking] (in German). QUAD-ATV Magazin. Retrieved 18 October 2015.
 * This is not, as you say, "about products not the company", but an article about the company and its entire product line!
 * Second, the article:
 * Manning, Ric (8 September 2015). "X-Systems Has Rugged Waterproof Phones And Tablets". Gizmo Editor. Retrieved 22 October 2015.
 * We agree that Ric Manning, as a technology journalist of stature, is a trusted source, also when writing on his own news source. The article, while short, contains sufficient information about the company to be considered "in depth". Importantly it also fails to qualify any of the points that lead to failure to achieve this criterium.
 * The above by itself leads to a clear conclusion that the article meets WP:NCORP.
 * On an beyond, the width of articles on the company's specific products also deserves some some credit. gidonb (talk) 14:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello the "Xmap Systems: Navigation und Tracking" [Xmap Systems: Navigation and Tracking] (in German)" is mostly about products it mentions the company very briefly just to say that it makes those products. The other thing I also have questions about the independence of the source. It looks to me like a paid-for advertisement. The article just showcases the products (pictures included) and ends up with a link to the company's page. I am still missing at least one clearly independent source with true in-depth coverage of the company to be able to justify meeting WP:GNG or WP:NCORP.--Crystallized C (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Lets take this one step back for a moment. What is X-Systems? It's a Dutch company (real structure is a little bit more complicated from what I've read) that directly designs and manufactures (through third parties) rugged electronic devices. If an article discusses the company, its product line, and product timeline than that is about as much depth as you will ever get for such a company. End of story one would think, but no, now suddenly the article is not independent. In other words, this has become a moving target. It was only show me where I'm wrong, and I'll change my opinion, now it has become: doesn't matter what the facts are, I'll find new ways to attack this. Fair enough. From what I can tell, QUAD-ATV is an independent German source for the terrain vehicle interest, hence also the interest in outdoor tracking, navigation, and communication systems. It is also distributed in print. The author, CHK, is in it with initials, as are other authors in this magazine. Pictures of products are often taken from websites. This is common practice in almost all magazines. A relevant link at the bottom is another piece of information on the company and somewhat undermines the prevailing 'lack of depth' argument. That's right, it only strengthens an article! To end on a positive note, there seems to be no argument about the article by Ric Manning. In conclusion, we have two in depth sources about the company, and it fully meets WP:NCORP. gidonb (talk) 00:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello I am sorry but we seem disagree on what is in depth coverage. To me just a phrase informing that the company started in the Netherlands two years ago followed by a product listing with release dates features and prices is no different than the routine coverage that can be found on any sales page. There is no significant additional information or analysis other than what can be usually found in any sales listing. Just routine product descriptions along with retail prices and a link to the company page, no comparison with its competition no mention of any issues or cons, no context of usage etc.
 * We both agree that sources can verify that the company exists and makes rugged cell phones in the Netherlands but this alone is not enough. WP:ORGSIG asks for sources with in depth coverage that show that the company "had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education". I don´t see this as being the case.
 * To summarize, no, I don't think the source provides the in-depth coverage of the company necessary to satisfy WP:NCORP or WP:GNG and even if I can't prove whether the article is paid by the company or not, it still looks like a promotional piece to me. I will feel comfortable recommending its inclusion as soon as we have a new reliable source that is clearly independent and with true in-depth coverage of the company. That is why I recommend moving it to the user space until the company does receive the needed coverage. Regards.--Crystallized C (talk) 12:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep The page of the discussable company is in my opinion relevant for Wikipedia, as it contains one of the few tech companies within the Netherlands. Next to this its most likely that only Wikipedian(s) who specifically search for the discussable company will read the information on the page, they as I did will appreciate the additional information/insight of the company. Last but not least; currently the page contains narrow and encyclopedic writing of the content. GameAlien

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 02:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 00:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. unmistakable PR article. The reviews are either not substantial or not from sources we would consider reliable.  DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Which phrase still came across as promoting the firm? gidonb (talk) 15:53, 11 November 2015 (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.