Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MindTouch, Inc.

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 merge to MindTouch. Dmitrij, by merging some of the content you have made it so that the article's history must be kept, see WP:MAD Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MindTouch, Inc.

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

Non-notability company that has produced (and keeps producing) a notable product. Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources which would indicate of its notability apart from its founders, employees and associated people events or its products. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:51, 26 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with MindTouch seems sensible. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I merged everything useful before the nomination. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - No you didn't. There should be at least a simple one paragraph section about the company that produces MindTouch if we're going to merge it. Steven Walling • talk 01:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with MindTouch. There are plenty sources enough to verify the basic facts about the company and its history, separate from development of the product, but it's silly to have a separate article. Steven Walling • talk 01:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The company has produced multiple products, so it's not at all silly to keep a well-sourced and useful article about it. Jonathunder (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- First, this company produces only one product available in several editions and in different delivery options. Second, the single "get to know" WSJ article isn't significant coverage and dosen't hint at this company's notability otherwise then via its product; thus this reference should not be used for establishing notability per WP:NCORP, as companies notability is not inherited from their products. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:54, 8 April 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.