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.
Delete Of the references in the article, 3 are (or were) to company sites, two are to a blog, two are 404. This is not a great start. Searching for better references discloses a company directory or two (e.g., Pitchbook) and a bunch of false positives. The only actual notice I find is stuff like
this blog post from 13 years ago wondering where opencola went and even then, the author is speaking of opencola -- the promotional soft drink that none of its drinkers knew was connected to a software company. This subject fails
WP:GNG and
WP:NCORP by any reasonable standard.
Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 15:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. "Not a notable subsidiary" is not a valid statement, nor does it apply. Open Cola was not founded as a subsidiary, and no such claim is made in the article. Age of references is not relevant to defunct companies. In addition,
Cory Doctorow is a notable author, nuf said. Also, any 404'd references are trivially fixed by using the Internet archive! Which I trivially did(You know, web.archive.org). This is easy, trivial, non-lazy lookup work. Please, before you just lazily join the deletionist echo chamber and yell "Delete", prove to me that you are not LAZY! Do some trivial, rewarding work!
Lexein (
talk) 22:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Lexein:, "Not a notable {insert any noun here}" is a valid deletion reason for any AfD discussion. The notability of subject is always the most basic criterion of deletion discussions, whether that notability is assessed against the
General notability guideline or
the applicable one of these subject notability guidelines. OpenCola's founding is immaterial - it was bought out by another company and therefore became (at least for a short time) a subsidiary. Cory Doctorow's notability is also immaterial, as
notability is not inherited, so no, that's not enough said. The point about the 404 sites is that those were the company's own websites -- if they can't be bothered to provide evidence of their own existence, it speaks very poorly to the question of why anyone else should care about it. Lastly, before you engage
in personal attacks over other editors's efforts, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the standards that apply to deletion discussions and notability. No-one is obliged to prove anything to you.
Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 16:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete (and possibly redirect to
OpenText afterwards). As described above, in no way is
WP:CORPDEPTH met here. A few mentions in minor sources about a technology they created does not provide sufficient notability for the company itself.
Black Kite (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2018 (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.