Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientigo

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 List of software patents#Notable due to proprietor hyperbole. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scientigo[edit]

[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)

Small patent troll that made a bit of an ephemeral stir 20 years ago when it tried to claim a patent on XML. Quickly sank back into obscurity. As a company it doesn't really do anything. 29 employees, 6 million revenue. No sources meet WP:CORPDEPTH. WP:ORGCRIT tells us that sources for such companies must be presented with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals. Thus CORPDEPTH says Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. No such sources exist. This is just a patent troll. Added a notability template in April to attempt to address the issues but this was summarily removed after a second report of the patent trolling was added (misdated. It is from 2005, and not 2020). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and North Carolina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ based on coverage in CNET (note the second page) MIT Technology Review and eWeek. These are all NCORP-standard sources, giving extended coverage and analysis of Scientigo and the merits of their claims. ZDNet, although the source itself is short, even had a co-editor of XML (Tim Bray) briefly weigh in on the issue, which does show the trolling was considered a fairly big deal.

I think the complaint the company is just a patent troll and doesn't really do anything misses the point a little bit – the patent trolling is precisely what the company is notable for. I agree it sank back into obscurity afterwards, but notability isn't temporary. The requirement is the company receives significant independent coverage in multiple sources; there's nothing about this coverage needing to take place over a prolonged period.

(misdated. It is from 2005, and not 2020) 2005 is the publication date, 2020 is the archive date. – Teratix ₵ 12:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it sank back into obscurity afterwards, but notability isn't temporary—OK but the immediate next section is notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time, so the question is, does SBST apply here? Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources provide deeper analysis, not mere description; they don't fall into the category of routine coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism. I could see a reasonable argument this could be covered as part of a larger article (patent troll, XML or somewhere else), or that the article needs to be rewritten to be about the patent controversy rather than the company as such, but the nominator was pretty clear he doesn't think there are any sources providing deep and significant coverage on the topic and seeks deletion rather than any alternative. – Teratix ₵ 15:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of software patents § Notable due to proprietor hyperbole. A burst of coverage surrounding ridiculous claims spanning about two weeks is basically textbook SBST. We're not here to host articles on every single entity that attained 15 minutes of fame (or two weeks, as the case may be) because they announced something ridiculous for publicity, and just because it's not listed in WP:ORGTRIV doesn't mean it should be automatically accepted. I did find two WP:TRADES sources, but I don't think they overcome the presumption of non-independence. In fact, both of them — Econtent Magazine ("SourceWare: The Search Engine with Good Intentions", TWL ProQuest 213817847 and Equities Magazine (two articles, "Special Situations" and "The Secret of Scientigo", which were formerly both available online) — read as magazines publishing puff pieces. Willing to kick it to RSN though. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a reasonable redirect/merger target, I'd support that. – Teratix ₵ 12:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that redirect too. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per no notability provided. --Old-AgedKid (talk) 10:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a couple of mentions in insider trade zines doe not constitute significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2024 (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.