Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Language Computer Corporation

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. Stifle (talk) 23:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Language Computer Corporation

Non-notable startup. VG ☎ 01:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 01:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 01:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 01:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A Google News search brings up only 3 articles, none of which are directly about the the computer company. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I would have speedied. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Ok, clearly I have not done enough to prove this is a notable company. Also, I disagree with the term "startup", the company has been around long before Wikipedia and doesn't seek VC funding like a startup. I agree that 6-month old startups that are 90% likely to fail are not notable. Before deleting the page, please give me some pointers on what must be done to prove notability. Seeing as how there is a page for question answering, it is notable that LCC has won NIST's competition for question answering almost every year for 10 years. LCC was in the latest issue of Communications of the ACM as one of 6 companies to have a web-based question answering system (others include Ask.com and BrainBoost). If Google News is your criteria, then you're going to leave out a lot of R&D companies that quite frankly don't have marketing units to seek press. I've seen Wikipedia pages for companies with 2-3 people who basically market the heck out of themselves yet accomplish very little. I recommend that instead of a Google News search, try a Google Scholar search using some of the "key" individuals mentioned on their website: Example 1, Example 2. Captkrob (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While it's useful to suggest where to look for sources of information, the burden is on the person(s) who believe that there is enough independent coverage to show notability to find the sources and add them to the article. If you can produce third party sources that verify the claims then the article will have a better chance of surviving. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide some direct links for those claims? I could not verify them myself (and I do have full access to ACM digital library). VG ☎ 19:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've found a few bits of information that convince me: (1) the academic sources, especially the ACM notice as noted above; (2) two US military contracts, one in 2006 for $8.04 million (US Fed News, 2006-10-02) and one in 2008 for $742,820 (US Fed News 2008-03-06); (3) some sources about the company's commercial spin-off, Lymba, like a review of Lymba's PowerAnswer product (Natural Language Engineering 14 (1): 141–144. doi:10.1017/S1351324907004639). From the looks of it, this is a largely low-profile operation, but it is working on a significant scale (just shy of $9 million in defense contracts!), and the sources are eminently verifiable. I will incorporate these sources and others within the next couple of days. Avram (talk) 07:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Update I still am planning on getting this up to par! One strong source I've just come upon is a summary of federal funds received, from www.usaspending.gov. This source gives a total of $8,353,476 from 2006 to 2008, with a breakdown by year and branch of the military (Army, Navy and Air Force). Avram (talk) 07:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Avram. rootology (C)(T) 00:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 17 employees do not a notable computer corporation make. Themfromspace (talk) 22:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no evidence that any Wikipedia policy sets a minimum number of employees in order to meet notability standards. The sources Avram has identified all support a claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 03:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Captkrob and Avram. Sources exist and articles should not be punished because the company doesn't have a public relations wing. -- Banjeboi 20:53, 7 October 2008 (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.