Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metaphor Computer Systems
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep. v/r - TP 01:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Speedy delete per A7. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 10:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article does indicate why this company was important - it was one of the first commercial platform developers to include wireless peripherals including a wireless keyboard, and was an early adopter of Graphical User Interface. Dialectric (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- There is a total of about seven mentions in the New York Times. Three of the seven are discussing the founder, and the news sources list his achievements. Among them, this company is listed. There is one source mention that Xerox is being sued by this company. The only reason there is even an article is because a notable company is being sued by one of it's subsidiaries. It is just a brief three sentence article mentioning that the suit was taking place. The other three sources are primarily about IBM, not this company. One of the sources mentions in one sentence that this company entered in a partnership with IMB. The other two sources mention that IBM was acquiring this company. Again, the coverage is due to the fact that a notable organization is being affected by another organization. There is indeed a large amount of coverage covering this merger, as is common with company mergers. However, are they notable outside of the company merger? Presently, it appears that the company doesn't, nor does it warrant a separate article. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 16:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Mentions in The Sydney Morning Herald, The Dallas Morning News, San Jose Mercury News, and The Chicago Tribune, among numerous others. I'm pretty sure they got to the bar. The Steve 02:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a total of about seven mentions in the New York Times. Three of the seven are discussing the founder, and the news sources list his achievements. Among them, this company is listed. There is one source mention that Xerox is being sued by this company. The only reason there is even an article is because a notable company is being sued by one of it's subsidiaries. It is just a brief three sentence article mentioning that the suit was taking place. The other three sources are primarily about IBM, not this company. One of the sources mentions in one sentence that this company entered in a partnership with IMB. The other two sources mention that IBM was acquiring this company. Again, the coverage is due to the fact that a notable organization is being affected by another organization. There is indeed a large amount of coverage covering this merger, as is common with company mergers. However, are they notable outside of the company merger? Presently, it appears that the company doesn't, nor does it warrant a separate article. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 16:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The first one is not a source on topic at all, the others are behind the WP:PAYWALL, but if they are similar to NYTimes, they are still useless. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what you mean by useless. From WP:N "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." No, its not substantial, but it is coverage, it is NOT about the merger, and it is from a reliable source. What more is it exactly that you want?... The Steve 10:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The first one is not a source on topic at all, the others are behind the WP:PAYWALL, but if they are similar to NYTimes, they are still useless. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 04:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I concur with Dialectric that this article should be kept because of the historical importance of Metaphor as a spin-off of the Xerox Star. All other GUI desktop operating systems were imitative, while Metaphor was a very direct architectural descendant. Even the internal code design was similar. When you consider that individual songs and cartoons get dedicated articles, I don't see how the only direct descendant of the groundbreaking Star can be considered not notable enough for Wikipedia. The problem isn't notability, it is that the article as written fails the "no original research" guideline, and lacks citations. But there is probably print coverage that could be found in business tech publications. Suggest seeking someone who can track down those citations. (By way of background, I worked on the Star at SDD under Dave Liddle, and knew many of the Metaphor founders.) Teri Pettit (talk) 00:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I agree with Teri Pettit that this article is worth keeping. Metaphor Capsule was the subject of at least one academic paper, combining Star's iconic interface with a unique visual programming style. The hardware was a design award-winner for the stow-able components. I agree the article could be better sourced. But in a world devoting many pages to 1960's TV shows, surely an advancement in computing technology deserves inclusion in Wikipedia. Disclosure: I worked at Xerox before moving to work for David Liddle at Metaphor in 1988.
- comment From Google Books (link at top): Articles in InfoWorld: [1],[2],[3] Computerworld: [4], [5] and PC Magazine: [6]. I have added one cite to the article The Steve 05:46, 10 March 2012 (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.