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. Spartaz Humbug! 05:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PAR Technology[edit]

PAR Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

an extremely small non-notable POS company--a great deal of promotionalism was removed from the article, see earlier versions. Refs are PR. DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
the list of staff was just part of it. Just previously, a list of customers was removed, There remains a char=== table of revenue by quarters, whichis excessive detail for a small company. But the question is whether there remains sufficient reliably souced material to justify notability . I dont think its li kely that there would be in such a small firm,and I wonder about the meaning of "I'd really like to keep the page up". I assumet hat means you have a direct conflict of interest. DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I checked HighBeam and I see in-depth sources that might support notability:

HighBeam is not a source. It includes publications that are sources, some but not all of them reliable for the purposes of notability It would clarify matters to specify the source, for the ones listed are either a local business journal,which is one of a network of publications that exit for the purpose of publishing press releases and notices. or a very minor trade journal. Every one of the articles--or at least the visible parts of them--appear to be in the category of press releases. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty much common sense that a significant government contractor is notable. There are a lot of indisputably notable companies for which the major sources are going to be trade or industry publications. These are high quality sources for determining the notable players in certain industries. The notability policy is intended to prevent the proliferation of articles that have no encyclopedic value (advertising). If this problem keeps coming up where we delete content of encyclopedic value because of a technicality in the way a policy is worded, then the policy should be updated. For example, Exxon's fuel additives subsidiary is indisputably a notable company which accounts for the majority of Exxon's revenue but can only be sourced to publications like Tribology & Lubrication Technology and Chemical Week. These are actually better sources than mainstream media for their industries.SeraphWiki (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are hundreds of thousands of government contractors. what counts as significant? There are two possibilities--one is market share in an important market-- the other is a technical (usually military) specialty. Trade publications vary in reliability for encyclopedic purposes, as does the information they provide. The production figures in a major trade publication are reliable, and that's already included in the routine data provision for primary sources in

WP:RS; the question is whether the inclusion of production figures in such a source, or a notice of a change in executives, or the like, are RSs to show notability. , They are enormously useful to people in the field of course, but that's something different. DGG ( talk ) 06:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there is enough information in secondary sources for a standalone article, then I think the company is probably notable. The sources are reliable and they are secondary sources. Promotional language should not be copied from the sources in any case, and it would be COPYVIO if it was. As long as the article is written in an enyclopedic tone and there is enough content for a standalone article, then I think the article should be kept an improved (which I can do). SeraphWiki (talk) 06:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Where in the notability guidelines or content policies does it say a significant government contractor is notable? Guidelines and police are what we go by. And what is the definition of "significant" in this context that is policy related? One person's treasure is another person's dross. The sources above that are listed on High Beam are company announcements, routine business as usual, carried by publications that publish these announcements.
This kind of sourcing is discounted in WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Please read these, it only takes a minute. Also, due to the nature of these sources they fall short of WP:NRV - evidence that this topic has garnered objective evidence [demonstrating] that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. Company announcements are not objective evidence - these lack independence from the company.
Exxon's fuel additives subsidiary would have to be proved notable on Wikipedia by multiple independent source coverage of the subsidiary with sources that are independent of each other, on Wikipedia. Self published sources can print or publish whatever they want on other websites. Thank you. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Market share is something that has to be covered in reliable sources and probably show how this is a significant impact in the world. It doesn't matter if these are in trade publications or regular commercial magazines. Also, trade publications are just as likely to carry company announcements as other content - companies are their bread and butter. The sources above are not secondary sources -they do not provide author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources WP:ANALYSIS. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion that sources like Closeup Media and the Business Journals are not independent, reliable sources has no basis in any policy whatsoever. I would never use WaPo for an opinion or analysis, but I would easily use it for a basic fact like "The President made an announcement that the country is at war." These are well-known independent media sources in an academic database, they are not press releases, and an article should not be deleted because you, for some reason, think they are self-published sources. There are some services that republish press releases and transcripts, but if an article says "The PAR Technology news release describes BBG as a "networked global media agency." then it is indisputably an independent secondary source for PAR's statement.SeraphWiki (talk) 08:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As for reading WP:NORG I know what it says Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization - as I said, if enough content for a standalone article can be reliably sourced, an article should not be deleted. Here's another part of the policy you should read: However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies...examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports - Is there some way the policy could be made clearer? The problem with NORG is that the way most editors read it, it would be stricter than GNG, while completely missing its purpose - to prevent the creation of very short, promotional articles about Aunt May's Etsy bead shop. It should never be used to delete articles about major companies that can be sourced to specialist/expert business sources.SeraphWiki (talk) 08:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Saying the status of Closeup media and Business journals has a basis in policy makes no sense at all. Wikipedia policies and guidelines don't mention Closeup media or Business journals or refer to any specific publication. I'm sorry to say, Closeup Media's focus seems to be disseminating business announcements and press releases [4], [5]. There is no content that isn't one of these. And the article chosen from a Business Journal segment in New York doesn't even have an author [6]. Also, in that article, obtaining a $14 million contract "to provide operations and maintenance"
(maintenance = janitorial services, operations = managers for janitorial service) does not seem to denote notability. Merely routine-run of the mill business stuff. Funding and setting up janitorial services for an entity does not seem to be a notable event worth covering in Wikipedia. There is nothing requiring specialists or expertise in this content or in any of the other linked source here and in the article. And yes Business Journals is capable of disseminating PR announcements for a company, just as it is capable of normal (journalistic) coverage of other events.---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
High Beam is generalized database service that carries newspapers, magazines, and some scholarly journals. It is not an academic database. Steve Quinn (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you. Sources don't stop being WP:RS because they are business sources, and notability is not conferred by what you think is important. I don't know why you think the contracts are for janitorial services. These are for things like technology integration, and the total of the contracts exceeds $100 million. The article says "the PAR subsidiary will transmit Voice of America, Radio Free Asia and other broadcasts, and maintain the REKTS equipment" - This article is about a company, not about an event - please do not vote to delete content based on these types of poorly reasoned, misguided comments. SeraphWiki (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, they are expert/specialist sources which is probably why you are misreading them and think they are about "janitorial services". It would take a knowledgeable editor to sort out the promotional language from the meaningful parts - technology integration is a real thing in the military. For example, when they change the control panels of Apache helicopters to require fewer buttons presses in combat, that is a form of technology integration - this UAS for Apache Teaming is an example of technology integration - obviously notable, if you understand what the articles are talking about. The language looks like nonsense but these contracts are not "janitorial maintenance" - the contracts are for Intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition, and reconnaissance and Geographic information system related work - the article content can be revised to discuss the company in non-promotional terms by an editor with competence to edit on what is a difficult and specialized topic, but a selective reading of WP:NORG (routine run of the mill business stuff) should not be a basis to delete an article that would pass WP:GNG.SeraphWiki (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I never said sources stop being WP:RS because they are business sources. I said these are specific articles are reporting routine unremarkable business as usual information. The only source I said was disseminating PR as its regular content is Closeup media. I'm not misreading anything. Please don't cite the wrong article that I was talking about. I was talking about this article [7], from which it cannot be inferred it is about technology integration. The article doesn't say "the PAR subsidiary will transmit Voice of America, Radio Free Asia and other broadcasts, and maintain the REKTS equipment". If it "takes a knowledgeable editor to sort out the promotional language from the meaningful parts", well I am such an editor. But please refrain from making personal comments at AfDs.
The article you cite is a blatant PR and a routine business announcement [8]. This article is not acceptable RS. It is not independent of the company. Here is that announcement in another web location [9]. Here is more PR [10]. There is nothing about "technology integration" in any of these. I don't know what that article on the Apache Helicopter has to do with anything here. PAR technology isn't even mentioned. Maybe the Apache Helicopter is notable - but it has nothing to do with this topic. Also, please stop with the personal comments such as "poorly reasoned, misguided comments" and "non-promotional terms by an editor with competence" and "what I think is important". ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just one article, why don't you actually go look for sources like I did before commenting at AfD? And yes it does say "maintain the REKTS equipment" etc, in the fourth paragraph. If you can't be bothered to read the source, please do not advocate for deletion. Yes, these publications are independent of the company. None of these publications are owned by the company. The civility policy doesn't shield you from criticism based on comments you actually make in discussions, and I don't think I've said anything uncivil. However, misquoting me could be considered uncivil.SeraphWiki (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And certainly misrepresenting what I cited is uncivil. I never cited partech.com - I cited a secondary, independent source for that announcement. WSJ is an additional secondary source for that announcement. Under WP:NORG, if there are a lot of secondary sources for these types of announcements the company can be considered notable. The main issue is whether there is enough content for a verifiable stand alone article. "Routine" announcements of $85 million dollar contracts to work on advanced military technology for battlefield applications is actually not a type of "routine" announcement that is covered by the policy, as long as it is reported in secondary sources. SeraphWiki (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The publications are not owned by the company. The specific articles are not independent coverage. The quotation is from a PR announcement as I just demonstrated, wherever it is located. No WSJ link was cited. Do you have the WSJ link? It is probably the same content. I'm not seeing anything about " Intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition, and reconnaissance and Geographic information system related work" in these articles. And the focus of the articles is funding (via contracts) for the company. Notability is not inherited WP:INHERITORG from other notable topics, and funding is routine unremarkable business as usual information WP:CORPDEPTH. The civility policy is pretty clear. WP:NPA applies to all discussions across Wikipedia. There is a saying, "comment on content, not on the contributor".---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just because an article has a few quotes from a press release does not mean it is not an independent source. The purpose of the policy is to prevent promotional advertising, this is both a legal requirement and crystal clear if you read the entire policy. This line of reasoning really misses the mark. As for what you do or do not see in the sources, I can't read them for you, they are cited above and there are more available in HighBeam and EBSCOhost, which are both academic databases. SeraphWiki (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentially, I do a lot of work at AfC and I would consider notable any company for which I could find over 100 sources in EBSCOhost that are not passing mentions but entirely about that company, in fact I err on the side of rescuing articles when possible where the available sources are far less overwhelming than this - as long as a standalone well-sourced non-promotional article can be written I don't see any need for deletion. Otherwise, it would require deleting a large amount of business-related content from Wikipedia, because no company would be able to pass notability under this definition, unless it had been involved in litigation or some kind of scandal. That is not the way the policy is supposed to be applied.SeraphWiki (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the only thing clear from this discussion is that WP:NORG needs clarification. The policy says that most of the time these companies do pass notability. Editors should not be overzealous or overlystrict about this policy to delete companies for which more sources most likely exist behind paywalls - like analyst's reports. The specialized guidelines for commercial organizations have more information on this, and it seems to have come up before but editors are still ignoring the guidelines that have been provided there to exclude sources they don't like. SeraphWiki (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Category