Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metaphor Computer Systems
- Metaphor Computer Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per WP:CSD § A7: another very notable company, developing "ideal product for brand managers" [sic]. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 04:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 12:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per A7. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 10:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - a referenced article on a potentially historically important computer workstation company tied to Xerox/Parc and IBM. Closed in 1994, so no potential for spam here. Multiple NYTimes hits: http://www.nytimes.com/keyword/metaphor-computer-systems, among others. Dialectric (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- The New York Times coverage is extremely limited. Their brief history can be summed up as; they were founded in 1982, sued their parent company in 1989, entered in a "partnership" with IMB in 1990, and got bought out by IBM in 1991. In the 22 sources you linked, the majority didn't even mention this organization. Of the eight or so sources that actually mentioned the organizations, there are only four non-trivial mentions in the news coverage. There is a three sentence news article mentioning that the company was suing their parent organization. The other three non-trivial sources mention that the organization was entering into a partnership and that the fact that it was being bought out by IBM. Because both Xerox and and IBM are well known organizations, it is to be expected that a smaller organization receives coverage for actions that affect the larger organizations. This organization didn't receive enough coverage to meet the guidelines. At best, the information could be merged into IBM and/or Xerox. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- The NYTimes was just a quick test to show the level of coverage likely met the notability threshold with some digging. I have added additional non-trivial coverage cites to the article. Dialectric (talk) 12:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- The company can't be notable for being tied to Xerox/Parc and IBM. The coverage in NYTimes is exactly of a kind that is to be avoided (see WP:NCORP). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- The New York Times coverage is extremely limited. Their brief history can be summed up as; they were founded in 1982, sued their parent company in 1989, entered in a "partnership" with IMB in 1990, and got bought out by IBM in 1991. In the 22 sources you linked, the majority didn't even mention this organization. Of the eight or so sources that actually mentioned the organizations, there are only four non-trivial mentions in the news coverage. There is a three sentence news article mentioning that the company was suing their parent organization. The other three non-trivial sources mention that the organization was entering into a partnership and that the fact that it was being bought out by IBM. Because both Xerox and and IBM are well known organizations, it is to be expected that a smaller organization receives coverage for actions that affect the larger organizations. This organization didn't receive enough coverage to meet the guidelines. At best, the information could be merged into IBM and/or Xerox. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep based on seven non-trivial news stories (helpfully counted by Alpha_Quadrant) in The New York Times alone. Meets my standard of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The Steve 08:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)