Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sigma Software (2nd nomination)

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 redirect‎ to Sigma AB#Sigma Software. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Software

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Refs are routine business, funding news, profiles and PR. Fails WP:SIRS. scope_creep^Talk 20:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, Sweden, and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For starters the original author has admitted to WP:PAID and is now banned for advertising so this article is already off to a bad start. Not to mention this article has been deleted before already. The social impact section doesn't exactly help WP:CORPDEPTH and seems to be of a promotional thing. For the remaining relevant part, I see two references are just interviews with the CEO and nothing else so we cannot use them per WP:ORGIND. The other references are just short mentions of the company. - Imcdc Contact 05:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment mostly due to the war in Ukraine there is now SIRS-coverage of the company in major Swedish news outlets. Unfortunately, I really can't spare the time to fix the article rn. Draken Bowser (talk) 11:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you post some article links if you have time User:Draken Bowser? I can try updating the article with sources. - Indefensible (talk) 03:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On a revisit I'm not sure it's at GNG-levels, there ain't much on the early history of the company, but there sure is a lot of coverage: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]/[6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. You'll probably need sv:Mediearkivet-access if you haven't got it already. The articles are mostly paywalled. Draken Bowser (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Might be an issue if they are paywalled but I will review. - Indefensible (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably enough to keep it, but at minimum can be merged with its parent Sigma AB if not. - Indefensible (talk) 23:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Taking into account this article's history, User:scope_creep's knowledge and expertise with WP:NCORP and my own reading of the article, my inkling is this company is not notable. Acknowledge, there's plenty of references added, unfortunately unable to see many of them in detail. Opposed to keep, but there is a case for merging to the parent company Sigma AB, especially if Sigma Software is now a wholly owned or near 100% subsidiary (looks like it but haven't been able to categorically determine). Rupples (talk) 12:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sigma AB owns 60% of Sigma Software from what I could find. - Indefensible (talk) 05:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this looks to be the case from the company's website. Didn't find the info. yesterday but did today by searching with a more specific query. Don't think the company meets NCORP on its own, but as you say, a merge to Sigma AB might be a valid alternative. The amount of content merged would have to be significantly trimmed to avoid giving WP:UNDUE weight. Not altogether convinced a merge is appropriate that's why I'm not formally recommending. Rupples (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The creator editor has been blocked as a UPE for covert advertising. I see a whole load of their previous articles have been deleted and more will be. scope_creep^Talk 19:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect TNT this, I'll add a sentence or two at Sigma AB pending expansion. Draken Bowser (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The deed is done, I think we can redirect now. Draken Bowser (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sigma AB#Sigma Software as its parent and the way the two are branded. Not ideal as its only 60% owned, but a reasonable outcome. Rupples (talk) 19:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Sigma AB per above. There is probably a bit more which could be transferred over in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. User:Draken Bowser has pretty much got this spot on by only including in Sigma AB non-promotional content from reliable, independent sources. If promotional content is added from the Social impact section of this article, the Sigma AB article starts to look like a proxy for this one. Rupples (talk) 23:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right now it does not mention the early history of the founding of Sigma Software in 2002. If this article is combined with the parent then it should cover more details like that. - Indefensible (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sigma Software as a brand was launched in 2014. Draken Bowser (talk) 20:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is more to a company than its brand name. Right now the parent article covers the acquisition in 2006, the renaming in 2014, and recent activities because of the war. But not the founding. Why? That does not seem consistent. If this article is merged or redirected there, we are going to lose some content. - Indefensible (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since the article subject is Sigma AB it kind of makes sense to include any information on Eclipse as a subsidiary, but I'm not sure it makes sense to relate the independent company's early history. Draken Bowser (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does and would cost very little in my opinion. Sigma AB only has 60% of Sigma Software based on the source that we have, that is enough for majority control but still leaves a good portion in outside control. If we remove this article then we should include some more in that article, it would not be promotional and is just giving more information. - Indefensible (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sigma AB#Sigma Software as ATD, topic fails NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:21, 12 July 2023 (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.