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 (talk) 05:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exadel[edit]

Exadel (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)

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. References are the usual low quality mix of self-published/press releases, and mentions in passing. Company doing business as usual; WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES, WP:CORPSPAM. Also, clear WP:COI>created by the company's employee, as they themselves admitted on article's talk page (no, COI is not a reason for deletion, just another red flag suggesting that nobody outside the company itself thinks it is notable). PS. Ping User:Chrissymad who nominated it for speedy; I skipped prod since the creator posted an argument for keeping it on talk. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to be inclusionist for entities like this -- we're not paper, so why not have the material, since somebody's already contributed it? -- so I'm not going to vote them out. Or in, either. I guess it's a question of whether one thinks "900 people and operate in several countries" is the kind of entity we ought to have an article on, or not. Herostratus (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to WP:RS, those are listed as unacceptable references for the purposes of ascertaining notability. I agree they appear to be a big company and one would assume such a company would have been written about in independent third party sources. I've haven't done an extensive search but I only see company-generated PR and announcements or passing mentions (all of which fail WP:RS) so I'm leaning towards Delete. Or to put it another way ... how do we really *know* they have 900 employees and operate in several countries if all the the information we have to go on was produced by the company. It could be all bogus. -- HighKing++ 17:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Natallia Sasava: Dear Natallia. Thank you for participating in the discussion. First, if the article would end up beind deleted, you can request that it is instead moved to your sandbox for future refininng (WP:USERFY); even if the conclusion is that the company is not notable now, it could become notable later, so your work wouldn't have to be wasted. Second. While I wouldn't rank Belarus government as highly truthful (dictatorships and truth are not best friends) , I agree there is no reason to doubt [1]. But while the company may and likely does deserve a mention of its name at Belarus_High_Technologies_Park, the fact that the website of that location mentions is does not help in estabilishing notability. That website is pretty much a WP:PRIMARY type of a resource; a de facto directory listing, and as such is not a good source. Being listed in a directory is not an achievement that grants notability. This doesn't even mention the company; that an employee is interviewed may relate to the notability of the employee, but not company, since notability is not inherited between entities. Product pages similarly don't confer notability. If there are reviews of the product, etc., it may deserve an article, but doesn't particularly affect the company. Well, if a company has produced a number of notable products, this usually is an indicator it is notable, but we would have to see the list of products, and discuss which one are notable. And frankly, the RichFaces you mentioned has very poor references and as written, should likely be a subject of its own deletion discussion (fails WP:NSOFTWARE, IMHO). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:56, 7 February 2017 (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.
More