Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LEAD Technologies (2nd nomination)

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 draftify to Draft:Leadtools. Considering the nature of the sources, my take is that the "delete" side overall made a stronger case. Listing out the tools and software used to produce results in an academic paper is standard practice, and it sets a very low bar for notability if citation in a journal is all that is needed. Nonetheless, there were also some paper resources (Charlotte Observer) that were offered up which are probably more substantial but that cover the main product, "Leadtools", rather than the company. As such, the compromise suggestion of bringing this to draft space for further revision and focus on the main product is the outcome that fulfills the largest number of concerns. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LEAD Technologies

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

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

Non-notable company. Fails WP:NCORP. Zero of the references provide in-depth, independent coverage of the company. [Note, I did not access the Chinese Journal of Medical Physics reference] Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 05:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 05:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 05:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom a Non notable company which lacks indepth coverage. Jaysonsands (talk) 10:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company has multiple patents, there are journal articles and reports that offer in-depth coverage, they work with the Dept of Defense and Veterans Affairs. Perhaps the article could be improved but it is an established company with important contributions and should not be deleted.Techgirl49 (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC) — Techgirl49 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
@Techgirl49: Having the government as a customer doesn't make a company notable. As WP:PATENTS says, noting the existence of patents or patent applications is a common form of puffery for businesses. Avoid giving too much emphasis to their existence or contents. See also WP:ITSIMPORTANT. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the nomination appears to have looked at the references and claim zero in depth coverage of the company there is insufficient evidence the nom. examined the FedBizOps 15 April 2009 carefully. While this covers only a company product in detail that is a significant aspect of a company. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Djm-leighpark: In what way do you think this provides in-depth coverage? It is an announcement of Veterans Affairs buying LEAD Technologies' PACS solution. See WP:ROUTINE. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article as currently written provides both for the LEAD Technologies company and the LEADTOOLS brand via LEADTOOLS, the latter being of more notability which is sustained as easier evidenced by links in books link above, noting InfoWorld 1 May 1995 for example. The nom. may be in pursuit of Techgirl49, having Draft:LEADTOOLS declined at AfC 3 June. Give sock work at LEADTOOLS their is cause for concern. But under it all I see a software brand that has sustained long term notability. I have used {{uw-coi}} directly asked Techgirl49 if she has a conflict of Interest with Lead Technologies and making her aware of Wikipedia declaration requirements if she has. I AGF that could be either way, but its sensible to directly ask the question. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Djm-leighpark: I think there might be paid editing or at least COI but I have no evidence and have chosen to AGF. That isn't the reason for my nomination. While the company has been around a long time, and the InfoWorld article brought back fond memories as I used the API in VB way back in 1995, WP:ITSOLD doesn't cut it. Per WP:PRODUCTREV, product reviews can help establish notability of a product, and InfoWorld is an independent, reliable source. It would take more though, to show that either that specific product meets WP:NPRODUCT or the company meets WP:NCORP. I would want to see a book, or chapter in a book, written about the company, or secondary coverage in a national newspaper, or a paper in a scientific journal, per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage of the company itself. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Curb Safe Charmer: I don't think I gave too much emphasis for the patents, I was just saying that they have them. I would disagree and think that having the government as a customer does make a company notable or at least validates their existence. I don't know what AGF means? I see you used their tools as far back as 1995! I use their tools as well and found them on a list when I googled and that led me down this rabbit hole. You used their tools over 25 years ago so you know they are legit and there are articles in journals about them. You clearly know all the rules and maybe I don't, but I have to ask if deleting this page would improve the knowledge base in Wikipedia or deteriorate it. And I believe the answer is that it would deteriorate. Request to improve it, certainly, But delete it? I still say no. Techgirl49 (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm .... One can read many things but I notice WP:BADGER to Bludgeon the process here, even extending to user talk pages. I am minded WP:NPRODUCT is satisfied by LEADTOOLS. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. The coverage here is trivial and mostly press releases, and lacks the independence necessary to establish notability. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCORP.4meter4 (talk) 03:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In order to have its own page, the company qualified as notable before now, and per Wikipedia guidelines, notability is not temporary, nor does the subject need to have ongoing coverage to still be considered notable. Plus, current market (e.g. PDF SDK, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Coil and Optical Character Recognition) research reports include the company and its product in their studies with the likes of other notable companies (e.g. Google, Microsoft, IBM), and current journal articles still reference and study the company and its product. Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for consideration of the sources provided by Heartmusic678.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:32, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aside from the lack of sourcing in the article, I couldn't find anything else on a search of mine. Fails WP:NCORP.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 02:16, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It took some time digging to come to this opinion, but this is what I found. 1) Several of the references in the article seem to show notability. E.g., The Study of Medical Image Communication of DICOM Standard Based on LEADTOOLS - Chinese Journal of Medical Physics (1 ed.). 2007 and Chang, Chin-Liang (1997). Fuzzy-logic-based programming. Advances in Fuzzy Systems. 15. Singapore: World Scientific. 2) I found some additional references to the company and/or its software. E.g., Joseph M Hilbe (2007) ePrint 5 Professional Conversion Utility, The American Statistician, 61:2, 179-180, DOI: 10.1198/000313007X193490 3) The organization is notable and has had a demonstrative effect on scientific communities as shown by the number of references with studies found in Google Scholar. While on the surface it may seem that the reference of the organization or software in these scholarly articles is trivial, it is not. The results of these studies are directly dependent upon the technology used for the study. 4) Because the references are from an international audience further shows notability. 5) Noticing the company is based in Charlotte, NC, I searched the local major newspaper and found a couple articles. Unfortunately, Google newspaper search seems biased to recent events, and I was not able to find the same articles that I did when searching the newspaper's archive directly. Articles of notability, but gated: Charlotte Observer, November 16, 1992, pg. 36 and Charlotte Observer, February 10, 2011, pg. A8 Trusty route (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment None of the reasons including the sources provided by Trusty route above have anything to do with the actual criteria used to establish notability. The guideline is WP:NCORP. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. Also, saying that the organization is notable because it had a demonstrative effect on scientific communities is synthesis, none of those scholarly articles says that. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH, per review of available sources, including presented at this AfD. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or move to LEAD Tools. The papers found and sources demonstrate notability of the technology. I didn't see a LEAD Tools page, so maybe that's a solution? FiddleheadLady (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no independent coverage available. It fails GNG and NCORP, misses CORPDEPTH and may have COI issues too. Sanketio31 (talk) 05:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Pipsally (talk) 06:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep addtl citations, content could be added to expand page but not necessary. Active since 2011 with updates over the years. The citations currently on the page do meet the minimum requirements for WP:SIGCOV MadMadder (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For four of the editors that have !voted 'keep', this is the first and only deletion discussion that they have participated in. Read into that what you will. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Curb Safe Charmer you should be looking at sources and notability such as the journal articles, book coverage and reports as well as the long term notability of the company/products. As Djm-leighpark pointed out, there seems to be WP:BADGER to Bludgeon going on here. MadMadder (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Current research reports do include the company and its products. Insufficient evidence that this page should be deleted 75.164.80.135 (talk) 13:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC) — 75.164.80.135 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment For those Keep !voters that believe that there are papers and sources which demonstrate notability, please post the best two of three links below for analysis. Be aware, each reference must meet both WP:NCORP and WP:ORGIND. If you can find two references that meet the criteria, I'll change my !vote. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to "Leadtools". I do not see significant coverage of the company anywhere, but sources like this (and those compiled above by talk) indicate to me that the product is being discussed. Searching for "Leadtools" brings up a few more sources like this from SD Times; arguably still sparse but enough imo. If not move, then delete. --LordPeterII (talk) 15:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with the move to Leadtools as mentioned above. Happy to change my vote officially if that matters. Or draft up a page if that is helpful, I am not sure how this process would work. FiddleheadLady (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Leadtools page. I changed my vote because the toolkit is a significant part of research per articles (DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-56224-7_14; [1]; [2]) mentioned in this discussion. Heartmusic678 (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft:Leadtools for now. I came here with the intent of closing this discussion, and was inclined to close as delete, discounting the !votes of low-participation editors coming into this discussion. Empirically, the 1992 Charlotte Observer piece is promising (though just local reporting at that time), and Leadtools gets decent numbers of Google Books and Google News hits, giving me the impression that this is a potentially notable topic. However, these are not in the article at this time, so I think it needs to go to draft to see if there is depth to that content. I would suggest that if moved to draft, some consensus-based process be required before restoring to mainspace. BD2412 T 01:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412: Thanks for that suggestion. As nominator, I would support draftification to a title about the company's main product, rather than about the company. I am unconvinced by any arguments put forward by others about the notability of the company and I think the longstanding editors that have participated in the AfD agree. The coverage that does exist, as you say, is about the product. Therefore the article would need to be re-worked in draft space to change its focus. The other reason for draftification is that there has been a long history of undisclosed paid editing on this article, right from its creation, and I believe that continues today. I believe there is a sophisticated paid sockfarm in operation here and we await the outcome of that investigation. COI is a valid reason for draftification. In the move to draft space the history, two AfDs and notes re paid editing will accompany it so extra scrutiny will be required by any AfC reviewer minded to accept the reworked article into mainspace. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:37, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given that comment and my participation in this AFD I checked Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Heartmusic678 and at least note I am not mentioned there. I object draftication but accept I need to take account of any decision here. I do not accept going via AfC, while I respect their role I have my reasons, but will accept a DRV review if required. I do not have nor seek WP:AUTOCONFIRM rights so any re-entry by me has to go via NPP. I never like to TNT because any history of COI editing is made invisible, and the job of marketing is in general to dress pig rear output as juicy sausages. Instead I prefer to WP:STUBIFY and rebuild, per Rosemay Leith, though accept I may have dishonoured a genuine NEWBIE in going too far, @BD2412 may present Leith to DRV if necessary. If their is a professional sock farm in use they might have the nous to back off if it get draftified, unless their being paid by LEADTOOLS opposition. Please note the brand is LEADTOOLS (in caps) as far as I am aware. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand most of the comments above. But it sounds like there is generally support for a LEADTOOLS page or draft which is what I voted for. Did I do something incorrect in my voting here? Is there something I can do better? I also commented on the investigation listed above. Thank you! FiddleheadLady (talk) 13:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.