Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advanced International Translations

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. v/r - T P 21:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced International Translations

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

Non-notable company. The article does not establish any notability. Jsharpminor (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also adding (at relist)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep:~~ Same editor as the next "Keep" !vote below. Black Kite (talk) 20:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC) This article is notable as it complies with WP:GNG. The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Such sources are: Essential Software: TranslationOffice 3000, a publication in MultiLingual Computing & Technology, Amicus TransTec atricle and What a Difference 18 Months Make: Translation Management Systems. Publication in Multilingual, Volume 18 can also be found in Google books search results. — 213.108.75.6 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 11:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

Delete: all sources in the article (including those above) are unreliable, and no significant coverage in independent reliable sources is there. The article is composed as abomination of everything related to the company, attempting to present several individually non-notable topics as something notable altogether, and in fact is a mere advertisement of B2B company, which is identical to all others on its market. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: all sources in the article are reliable since they correspond to "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" rule including third-party publications in books (see References). Essay mentioned above is not Wikipedia policy. This article only contains general information about a notable company and does not have any kind of advertisement in itself. — Alexthetranslator (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:10, 27 August 2012‎ (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
- The interesting thing about essays is that they explain application of policies. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I only found two press releases.[1][2] Press releases are not independent of the Advanced International Translations subject. There's not enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the Advanced International Translations subject for a stand-alone article per WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: This editor is a CU confirmed sock of the above Keep !voter. Black Kite (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC) I consider, these sources are reliable and confirm notability of the company:[reply]

Translation and Localization Project Management: The Art of the Possible By Keiran J. Dunne, Elena S. Dunne according to "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable.".
Essential Software: TranslationOffice 3000 according to "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". — LeadAlex (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 10:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RELIST rationale Whilst the company may be notable, the sources are poor (for example of the two given by the last Keep !voter, one is a blog and the other is a passing mention). All Keep voters are SPA. I have added Projetex translation management system to the AfD as it is one of their products and clearly won't be notable if the parent company isn't. Black Kite (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alexthetranslator mentions several of the participants of this discussion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:11, 29 August 2012 (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.