Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bach Technology

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 no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bach Technology

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a non-notable company. It's possible that MusicDNA, a product this company may have helped create may be notable. Salimfadhley (talk) 03:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:CORP. no sources provided to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 14:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This chicken and egg article about subjects whose products or creations are notable but, supposedly, they aren't is silly. It doesn't make a lick of sense ot have article on a company's products but no article on the company itself. A combined article is fine with me, but if the company's products are notable then the company itself is notable. THe same goes for authors and architects etc. Inheritability refers to a relation not to the creator of something. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only does the article not link to a company website, which is problematic, Google search doesn't return any articles that support notability. As for Candleabracadabra's chicken-and-egg argument, it's not an issue since a product can be notable without having its creator be notable inasmuch as an album can be notable without having the band that created it be notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found some sources on HighBeam and will integrate the sources and any additional content so that you can see what you think from that point.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was getting ready to close the AfD but considering your recent comment I'm willing to either userfy it for you to work on it at your own pace or relist within 24hrs if you've had the time to integrate the aforementioned new sources. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvidrim!: I'm finished for the moment. There's more material that could be added, but it should be a good start. I essentially rewrote the article - it was not written for the company headquarters in Norway, but one of the locations in Germany, which might have been part of the problem. Hope this helps!--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate more discussion after a rewrite & the addition of numerous sources.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 07:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick comment about the article's url. I was bothered, too, that there didn't seem to be a corporate website. So, I entered bachtechnology.com - hit enter and it redirected to the MusicDNA site (http://corporate.musicdna.com/). I later saw something in an article or something from several years ago that pointed to the bachtechnology site. I am guessing it's a branding approach to use MusicDNA as the domain. As an FYI, I added some comments about expansion - and having someone review the technical stuff on Talk:Bach Technology.--CaroleHenson (talk) 08:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep CaroleHenson's additions are certainly enough to satisfy WP:GNG. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:04, 17 January 2014 (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.