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. Sandstein 09:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infragistics[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Infragistics (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)

References do not meet WP:ORGCRIT. My WP:BEFORE search didn't find anything better. CNMall41 (talk) 02:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 02:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 02:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I said nothing about ORGCRIT, so mu. GNG, on the other hand, states if "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article", and it has a lot of sources that give sufficient weight to the existence of an article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand you wrote GNG, but ORGCRIT says in particular "the guideline establishes generally higher requirements for sources that are used to establish notability than for sources that are allowed as acceptable references within an article." Companies have been given higher standards, including with the strengthening of WP:NCORP a few years back. So while the company may be mentioned in many articles, these are brief mentions, general announcements, and references closely associated with the company (such as press releases) which would not satisfy the guideline in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's wonderful. It's not an issue though because if a subject meets the general notability guideline, every other guideline is moot. You understand that, right? And while they're brief mentions, there are a sufficient number of them that we have an over significant coverage of the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, Civil much? If you don't like my opinion I understand but stick to content. I'd expect better from an experienced editor but maybe not. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are you on about? I made no commentary on you, but I did ask you a question. The issue at hand is whether one notability criteria is enough or if your preferred criteria must be met. Someone below claims it does not meet GNG, that's better than claiming that ORGCRIT must be met and GNG is not valid. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Intent of my comment is that if ORGCRIT is not met then GNG is not met, former being the measure of the latter. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is correct. GNG is the generic guideline but many subject topics have specific guidelines to provide additional explanations/context in applying the GNG guidelines. For example, the guidelines for topics/organizations is WP:NCORP. It is *impossible* for an article to somehow pass GNG and to then fail NCORP - this is usually because of an incorrect/incomplete application/understanding of the relevant guidelines. HighKing++ 18:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal(T) 18:35, 27 December 2019 (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