Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PearC

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. (non-admin closure) ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ message • changes) 20:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PearC

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

Company does not meet WP:CORP or WP:N Per WP:SBST "Notability is not temporary" BruceGrubb (talk) 14:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with comment PearC along with MacIntelligent (UK), OpeniMac (Argentina), and Quo Computing (California, USA), and RussianMac (Bizon Computers) come to the public's attention in the light of the February 5, 2009 ruling in the Apple vs Psystar case that opened up the EULA issue again. However as the issues changed to claims about withholding financial information (April) and Psystar's Chapter 11 announcement (May) all these companies fell off the radar of the general press.

In fact the only references to Psystar after May 2009 that were found were in an obscure German macuser magazine called MacWelt: a year in review piece and a benchmark of a new Psystar machine. Nick Spence in Is Mac Cloner PearC Flouting Apple's EULA in E.U.? - PCWorld, April 10, 2009 states "Psystar, run by HyperMegaNet, based in Wolfsburg, Germany, currently ships to 23 destinations including the UK via delivery firm DHL." shows either poor editorial oversite on the part of PCWorld or that the parent company is so obscure than only a connection with noteworthy Psystar would make it noticeable.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 16:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 16:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: This company has been in the news in Europe, specifically the UK many times. --AnonyLog (talk) 07:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AnonyLog, you were the creator of this article but in the time since you created it (October 16, 2009) only one reliable reference has been provided.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it has multiple reliable and independent sources. At the very least merge/redirect to OSx86 --SF007 (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Insider201283 produced some of these "reliable and independent sources" one of which I provided above. All of these had the problem of if it wasn't for the development in the Psystar case nobody would know PearC existed. Bizon computers which had more references than this article was deleted because it didn't meet WP:CORP and if what it had wasn't enough than the one lone reference this article has certainly isn't. Simply claiming there are sources is not enough. We need to SEE them.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are more two references in the article that mention this company, one by softpedia and another by ars technica. I do not strongly oppose a deletion, but I think this should at the very least redirect to a list of some sort. --SF007 (talk) 23:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Remember WP:CORP clearly states "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it". The ars technica article "German company PearC begins selling line of Mac clones" shows PearC is clearly riding on the coattails of the February 5, 2009 EULA ruling in the Psystar case. The softpedia article "The War Between Apple and the Mac Clone Makers" only mentions PearC in passing and therefore fails the "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources." requirement of WP:CORP. Never mind these are not references but external links just thrown in at the end of the article. Also you still have to deal with WP:SBST which neither of these articles do.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment It is significant since it seems that, under EU law it may actually be legal, unlike it's American counterpart. At worst, it should be merged with OSx86. --AnonyLog (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Except the whole EULA issue became kind of moot when Apple revealed on November 27, 2008 used DMCA (Copyright Directive in the EU) protected methods to enforce its EULA. The InfoSoc Directive is even more restrictive than Section 1201 of the DMCA but all these news reports were on the EULA bandwagon. As I said in the talk page the only reason PearC is on anyone's radar is they made an announcement relating to the EULA decision in the Psystar and once that was replaced by Psystar filing Chapter 11 PearC along with MacIntelligent (UK), OpeniMac (Argentina), RussianMac/Bizon Computers (Russia) and Quo Computing (California, USA) might as well fallen off the planet as far as the general media was concerned.

WP:CORP is quite clear "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. If the organization itself did not receive notice, then the organization is not notable." The fact that even MacWelt in Germany had to go all the way back to Feb 2009 for its year in review go get anything on PearC and the only thing since then has been a benchmark test (which IMHO likely fails the WP:SPIP test and so isn't usable for notability purposes) shows PearC fails the WP:SBST test as well. There is nothing notable about PearC on its own merits and therefor it fails WP:CORP.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but the article clearly needs work. The company has continued to receive press coverage, as recently as last month [1] --Insider201283 (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "Test: Pearc Professional Stylence" is just a test of some of PearC's hardware which do NOT seem to meet WP:SPIP requirements. Again just claiming the article needs work is not enough. Will Beback gave a week for the article to get fixed and all we got were nonsense like PCWorld above and tangential reference that didn't meet WP:CORP, WP:SPIP, and-or WP:SBST. The fact we have to go to a relatively obscure German mac user magazine to find anything on PearC shows just how non notable it is. Per WP:SBST "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability."--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I counted 4 articles that exclusively deal with PearC and/or its products: [2] Network World, [3] PC World, [4] de:Macwelt, [5] Ars Technica. It's also mentioned in a few more as pointed out above (Softpedia etc.) Pcap ping 00:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability has now been established. I myself will work on the article in the coming days to make sure the sources are put to good use. Airplaneman ✈ 03:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not know why it was relisted, as nobody spoke for deletion except the nominator. In any case, it now has sources. "Notability is not temporary " means the opposite of what the nom. thinks--it means that if it ever was notable, even for a short while, it remains notable. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 10 May 2010 (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.