Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xilisoft Corporation


 * 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.  Kurykh  01:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Xilisoft Corporation

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I believe this is a non-notable company. Original author removed a speedy notice and a prod notice without adding any documentation of notability. Notability is sort of asserted, but not from a reliable source (cite is to the company’s own website). I spent a while looking for references, and found only the company’s website, and reviews on software download sites. Since prod was contested, bringing it here. barneca (talk) 18:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete as there are zero reliable sources in the article, but it may be verifiable as it gets gazillions of Ghits 7 million for the products and tens of thousands for the corp itself. I challenge anyone to wade through that mess.  Notable corp? Bearian (talk) 23:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless reliable, independent sources magically appear that verify the notability of this corporation. Like every wikipedia article, this one must have independent sources, (and the onus is on the article's creator(s)),  not just the company's website as sources.  I will change my opinion if anything significant turns up.   Keeper   |   76  22:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions.   -- Gavin Collins (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as company fails WP:CORP. The lack of reliable secondary sources makes this article look like a Ghit farm for its products. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - The article is well intentioned, not just a hit farm. And one would think that a company making software so ubiquitous would be notable.  But if they were notable, some reliable source would have been interested enough to write about them.  Maybe they're just a very productive but completely uninteresting company, i.e. not notable.  Notability goes to whether something is worth reading.  If there's simply nothing to say about the company that makes the software (the article subject is the company, not the software), then there's nothing to say. Wikidemo (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2007 (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.