Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KioWare

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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

KioWare

KioWare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Article is promotional in nature. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 09:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 09:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 09:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 09:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: References added to American Libraries Magazine article and a book about Android kiosks in libraries. Lboniello (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete: No indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. References fail as PRIMARY and not independent, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep:This software and article is notable. There are multiple primary,secondary, (and independent) sources in kiosk industry journals. This is a niche industry and a often discussed software within the industry. Kiosk industry leaders include Craig Keefner, James Kruper, and Frank Olea. Kioskindustry.org, Kioskmarketplace.com and Kiosk Solutions Magazine are the leading relevant industry publications. Lboniello talk

Hi Lboniello, you haven't yet clearly indicated if you are !voting to Keep or Delete (although I assume the former). Just put a bold "Keep" or "Delete" in front of your comment. Also, PRIMARY sources are not acceptable for the purposes of establishing notability. If there are any references that you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability, please post links here or post book/page references - anything that we can use to check them out. Thank you. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! HighKing - done. Lboniello talk

• Keep:As lockdown kiosk software goes which secures devices and ports at a hardware level, the overwhelming majority of deployed solutions are KioWare, Provisio and Microsoft (assigned access is latest iteration). Has been since 2005. Frost and Sullivan and other research firms can be audited for supporting numbers. There were other pre-2000 but they went away. Netkey was one but more than secure software. I see Netkey has a page on Wikipedia. Link modified to NCR. Hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigcatareno (talk • contribs) 19:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep: I have started to scrub this article's citations and provide better ones. I think it is okay as a stub now. I can add more as well, but need a bit more time. Please advise. -- Erika aka ̴̴̴̴BrillLyle (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I've looked at the references in the article. This first reference is a magazine and includes a 4 question "interview" with a customer in a section of the magazine that states "To have a new product considered for this section, contact ..." so clearly it is a section where a vendor places an article. Also, the responses from the "customer" have been written by a marketing department. Fails WP:ORGIND. This digitalsignagetoday.com article fails WP:ORGIND as it is based on a company announcement in relation to a new release of software. Similarly, the next digitalsignagetoday.com article is based on another announcement in relation to a software update and fails WP:ORGIND. This article in kioskmarketplace.com clearly states that it is quoting from a KioWare case study (which is available on their website) and is therefore not intellectually independent, provides no independent opinion or analysis and fails WP:ORGIND. This article from rfidjournal is based on PR from a partner, Precision Dynamics Corp and therefore also fails both WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. This digitaljournal.com article fails for the same reason (even states at the top its a Press Release). This third article from kioskmarketplace.com is written by Laura Miller - director of marketing for KioWare! Therefore fails WP:ORGIND. This cpbj.com article is based on an interview with the same Laura Miller with no independent opinion or analysis and therefore fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. This article in aviationpros.com fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it is a mere mention-in-passing that KioWare will design the software for a kiosk. This article is a case study from CreditCall and is not intellectually independent (case studies rarely, if ever, are) and fails WP:ORGIND. This book reference mentions KioWare in a list of kiosk software providers and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. This next digitalsignagetoday.com article is again based on a company announcement and fails WP:ORGIND. Finally, this kiosksolutionsmagazine article is another company announcement and fails WP:ORGIND. For those !voters that !voted Keep, I understand this is a niche area, but the references to date only prove that KioWare has some sort of functioning marketing/PR department and none of those references meet the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947^{(c) (m)} 04:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• • While I appreciate the critical eye taken in the above comment, I do think that this company deserves to have an entry on Wikipedia. And although the entries are not perfect, they are adequate for a stub entry. This is a niche industry that I personally know little to nothing about, but I don't think that the entry is a bad entry necessarily. Wikipedia does a pretty bad job of covering business / organization entries, and this is probably not that different than the majority of them. I personally would like to see the entry improved, but I sort of object on principle that it should be deleted. I disagree with deleting. The article should be improved, not deleted. -- BrillLyle (talk) 06:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947^{(c) (m)} 00:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - The subject does not seem to pass our general notability criteria, as the sources that mention this company do not go into detail about it. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 02:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete per HighKing's analysis of current sources, and my failure to find better ones. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

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.