Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caphyon

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 delete. Cirt (talk) 01:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caphyon

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

Spam, created by a corporate account, speedy deletion contested, prodded, contested by a likely sockpuppet. But still spam, is it not? Biruitorul ^Talk 15:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is established by the reviews in respected publications such as Macworld.-- Eastmain (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a review of one of their products, not of the company itself. Notability is not inherited, and this remains corporate spam. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not a valid distinction. WP:NOTINHERITED is for keeping out articles about non-notable relatives of famous people. A review of a company's product helps to establish notability for the company itself. -- Eastmain (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk) 03:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk) 03:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What makes computer companies notable is their notable products. They have sufficient independent reviews to show that. DGG ( talk ) 09:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
non-exceptional average company making average things. We do not need this. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Delete per nom; this is spam with serious COI issues. Haakon (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is indeed spam, the claim to notability is entirely dubious, and the rationales behind the keep votes are questionable if not misleading. No, the mere notion that one of this firm's products was covered in some outside source (or rather, was not entirely without coverage) is not a guarantee of notability. No, not just because of NOTINHERITED (which, yes, does clearly apply in this case - as anyone can read, it's not, not just, about "relatives of famous people"). It's also because of common sense, burden of evidence and leaning on the side of caution (and responsibility) before letting every mom and pop store make a mark on wikipedia that it fails to have in the real world. But that's just part of it, because a closer look that genuinely gives a damn at those "sufficient independent reviews" will reveal that these mostly come to us from how-to forums and blogs, and that the few such texts to go into any detail other than technical don't appear to mention Caphyon the group at all - meaning that the entry on the company itself is not validated by anything in the sources, and that even such poor sources were abusively cited for something they do not say. Dahn (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2009 (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.