Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wondershare Software

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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wondershare Software

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

As per WP:Company and WP:B2B. The softwares created by the company are quite popular and find mentions in several reliable tech news websites. However, the company itself is not notable enough for an encyclopedic entry. I am unable to verify the claims that it was named in the so-called Deloitte technology fast 500 list and it ranked 34 out of 200 in forbes list. After a quick web search i found it has some mention in some forbes list of Year 2011 [1]. Even if the claims are true, I doubt whether it meets notability criteria. Harsh (talk) 18:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This link [2] that i provided above is a third-party source. Another source -->[3] is exactly the same as one mentioned above. Harsh (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Note that even if this company's products turn out to be notable, companies do not inherit notability from their products: see the last paragraph of WP:PRODUCT. Dear @Harsh 2580: A) Thank you for nominating this article for deletion. B) You linked to a bunch of press releases. Independent coverage is required to prove notability. Press releases don't count: see WP:42. C) Inclusion in "top companies" lists generally does not help prove notability. Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As the creator, I am probably biased with my keep vote but will give the follow reasons to keep. This is also the first deletion discussion I have taken part in so I apologize if I missed something here. First, note that this is not a product article so I am unsure of why there is discussion of such. I am not even sure that its products would qualify for individual articles which is why I included it within the company article and did not create articles for the products. Products that generally do not qualify for their own articles would generally be redirected into the company article if I read the guidelines correctly. So, I in no way meant to attempt to establish notability from the products. The reason for notability is for both Forbes and Deloitte. While I would agree that inclusion in many top lists "generally [do] not help prove notability," I believe that being listed by Deloitte and Forbes would. Hence, the reason for the creation. The company does receive mentions in many trade publications, but the ones I used was simply to support content, not to establish notability. The main articles I relied on are those discussion Forbes and Deloitte. Thanks. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Regardless of the author's notability, featuring in their list does not make something inherently notable. Instead, as the GNG says, it is a "passing mention", not something that makes a topic suitable for the creation of a stand-alone article. ► Philg88 ◄ ^♦talk 04:57, 14 April 2014 (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.