Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MikroTik

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. John254 05:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MikroTik

Non-notable company with. Article cites no 3d party references, makes (let alone demonstrates) no claims that would give rise to presumption to notability. Bongo matic 00:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Not completely sure about this, but it looks to me like this probably passes WP:ORG. There are several books that provide coverage of this company which, according to them, is a popular router manufacturer in the developing countries:[1][2][3]. A plain google search[4] gives over 4.5 million hits. While I usually wouldn't reply on plain goggle searches for checking notability, in this case a look through these results seems to show a pretty wide presence of the company around the world. Nsk92 (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those references don't appear to me to meet the "significant coverage" test. Nor does presence in the absence of "significant coverage" confer notability. Bongo matic 03:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Article is rather well done and company may sneak past notability criteria. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Operative words: "sneak past", meaning evade. Yes, if this article is kept it will be through evading the notability guidelines. Bongo matic 03:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I simply don't see this meeting the muster of wp:corp in its current state. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Google News has a handful of entries. Whilst they should be reliable, I can't be sure if they are press releases or what. Perhaps some of our slavic-speaking friends can assist. Marasmusine (talk) 12:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Keep as it is enough to satify me under the notability guidelines for organisations. Weak because it just does that. Importantly it doesn't seem overly promotional in nature. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cranky, so take with grain of salt. I see Baltic articles being nominated for deletion because of perceptions which, in the end, state that nothing Baltic is big enough to be notable. This is quite frankly killing off any initiative to create and develop Baltic articles. I would very much like a break from arguing over Baltic history during Soviet occupation. It would be a nice change to work on some small articles, but not if there's a whole new set of WP:HOOPS to jump through, which is the unfortunate perception I'm developing. -PētersV (talk) 03:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Baltic is not Slavic. Glad to help, but not if it's more WP:HOOPS. :-) -PētersV (talk) 03:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination makes no mention of the size of the company. There are plenty of notable companies that are small in number of employees--this just doesn't (to the nominator) appear to be one of them. Bongo matic 05:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pēter, the reference to Slavic-speakers has to do with the fact that a major market for MikroTik products is in central, eastern, and southern Europe (particularly Poland, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, and Serbia), where they like robust and inexpensive technology solutions. If, for example, some Polish or Czech IT person could find a reputable third-party reference to MikrotTik's significance in these markets, then the article could probably be saved from the threat of deletion. I'm trying my best to find one, but I'm only an historian after all... —Zalktis (talk) 07:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Third party references have now been added to demonstrate the significant penetration of the company's products in markets as diverse as Czech Republic and Brazil. —Zalktis (talk) 08:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Penetration" doesn't seem to be a criterion in WP:CORP, and the references don't appear to me (noting I don't read the languages) to provide significant coverage of the company itself. Bongo matic 08:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added more third-party references, some of them scholarly, and about a new area, Africa. —Zalktis (talk) 12:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "the references don't appear to me (noting I don't read the languages) to provide significant coverage of the company itself." The whole Czech article (the first of a series), is about MikroTik routers. A Brazilian newspaper specifically mentions a Latvian company's products; does this not satisfy in part the demands of WP:CORP#Primary criteria? "Significant coverage" is, at best, a subjective criterion. Do you mean to say that, following your reading of WP:CORP, a company's products or brand name may well be notable, but that this does not necessarily mean the company itself is notable? —Zalktis (talk) 13:14, 19 November 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.