Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SamLogic
- 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- SamLogic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This company doesn't appear to meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. There doesn't appear to be any coverage of this company itself, and the products don't get much reliable coverage either. The Swedish article is the exact same as the English article. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Internet, Software, and Sweden. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: There might be more TechWorld articles and also descriptions of their software on Softpedia. IgelRM (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- None of the software postings describe anything about the company at all, and those downloads websites are not reliable sources. Websites like Softpedia basically only exist to get people to download software from them so they accidentally install malicious installer programs or malware. The TechWorld article isn't even about the company itself, and is basically just an ad for one of their products. Nothing I could find counts as meeting the WP:NCORP requirements of containing WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject of the article directly in WP:RS. I did find coverage of the company in a college thesis, but information from it was seemingly taken from an email interview, making it WP:PRIMARY, and theses are not usually counted as reliable sources. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- The thesis in question (presumably) – Teratix ₵ 15:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- None of the software postings describe anything about the company at all, and those downloads websites are not reliable sources. Websites like Softpedia basically only exist to get people to download software from them so they accidentally install malicious installer programs or malware. The TechWorld article isn't even about the company itself, and is basically just an ad for one of their products. Nothing I could find counts as meeting the WP:NCORP requirements of containing WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject of the article directly in WP:RS. I did find coverage of the company in a college thesis, but information from it was seemingly taken from an email interview, making it WP:PRIMARY, and theses are not usually counted as reliable sources. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: There might be more TechWorld articles and also descriptions of their software on Softpedia. IgelRM (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- The Techworld article is clearly unsuitable, I couldn't find any other decent coverage and both the Swedish and English articles were created by single-purpose accounts. On the another hand, supposing there were coverage of this Swedish company founded in the 1990s, would it really show up in my own Google and database searches? I'm inclined to delete but I would be reassured if we had some Swedish input. – Teratix ₵ 15:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete I'm unable to locate any references that meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 20:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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.