Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mar-Kov Computer Systems

Mar-Kov Computer Systems

non notable company Excariver (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does not seem right that a company, no matter the size, have its entry deleted when its direct competitors have entries. As far as I am concerned, it should be all or nothing.Akoves

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Gavin Collins (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find press releases, but I cannot find indepedent reliable sources about this company. -- Whpq (talk) 18:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tech businesses need strong indicia of notability from the get-go. This has no references except to its own internal website. Claiming that products are solutions is execrable English, and a per se violation of neutrality. That other articles exist on similar subjects doesn't necessarily mean that this one should; perhaps they also fail as well. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have proposed deletion of Mar-Kov CMS, which is a related article. Suggest that whatever the outcome of this discussion, the two articles should meet a shared fate. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computers-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question/comment. (meant non-contfrontationally) I'm curious as to what you mean by the comment that tech companies need strong indicia. Are you saying the standard should be different for tech than other companies? I only partly agree with your comment about "solutions." Yes, using an otherwise wonderful word in that way as marketing speak is a pox on the language. But if one swallows that, I don't think it's POV. It's just a synonym for "software that addresses a business or process function." It's only by insisting that "solutions" retain its primary meaning, that a problem is successfully and fully resolved, that it becomes POV.Wikidemo (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - couldn't see any notability here. The fairness argument that a company should be included if its competitors are has appeal but I don't agree. We're here to foster knowledge in the world, not to create a marketplace. There's a close cousin to that argument that does work...if we cover 90% of a subject we ought to cover the other 10% because otherwise the gap is unencyclopedic. It really depends on the nature and shape of a business. If there is a small number of companies in a field, and if the field is such that really understanding the field requires us to know each of the competitors, it makes sense to describe them all one way or another. If there are an indefinite number, or if a complete list isn't really essential, no reason to do it just out of fairness.Wikidemo (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikidemo. GreenJoe 12:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]