Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NCH 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 keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained, and that this company meets notability guidelines. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NCH Software

[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)

promotional and non notable. Half the refs are mere notices, others are short mentions in books or general articles (like the NYT). the rest are non authoritative brief reviews (like PC magazine). DGG ( talk ) 07:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to remove this page. Please cite specifics regarding alleged 'undisclosed paid interests.' That contention seems spurious. NCH long-standing pages merely contain factual product info that no one need pay to outline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krosnafone (talk • contribs) 22:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC) — Krosnafone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It would be easy to fix if it could be referenced from a reputable source, rather than replying with bluster.--Grahame (talk) 23:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible its program VideoPad is notable, but that does not mean that the firm necessarily is. DGG ( talk ) 10:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ Keep. Updated position: On review of
WP:NCORP: A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I could not find any significant IRSS via Google; nor via a ProQuest database search of Australian and NZ newspapers (which is deeper and wider than Google); nor via a search of Australia's Trove newspaper archives. Having said that, Unscintillating's previous argument to keep the page has weight: "the topic has been in business since 1993, which is almost pre-internet, which shows great longevity"; as does Cunard's: "There is sufficient coverage [1, 2, 3]". Certainly IRS do NOT need to be live on the internet. While it seems NCH Software is a significant company--and as an inclusionist I have a history of attempting to save articles where possible-- based on my research it fails WP:NCORP. I would also note that objection above by Krosnafone is spurious; and his account history looks far from bonafide--including this objection he posted directly on the page. Cabrils (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment The previous afd was in 2014. This is now 7 years later, and standards have increased for this type of articles. That doesn't mean we should start revaluating everything, but perhaps it does mean we should start re-evaluating the borderline. DGG ( talk ) 07:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this position, seems sensible to me. Cabrils (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the ping, Cabrils (talk · contribs). Also pinging the only other Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NCH Software participant who has been active in the last year: Mrjulesd (talk · contribs).
Cabrils, would you review the two sources I posted below? Thanks,
Cunard (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have done and am persuaded, now voting to keep the page. Cabrils (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
reliable sources
.
1. May, Scott (2011-06-28). "NCH Software offers fantastic, affordable apps". Columbia Daily Tribune. Archived from the original on 2021-02-14. Retrieved 2021-02-14.
  The article includes analysis of NCH Software: "Unlike many publishers that charge high prices for all-in-one suites that do more than you probably need, NCH Software takes a modular approach, designing smaller apps that do specific tasks, usually for a lot less money. It’s simply a smarter way to work."
  The article discusses NCH Software's history and products and the author intersperses his commentary throughout the article.
2. Fernandez, Edgardo (2014-07-25). "NCH Software: Los mejores desarrolladores de herramientas" [NCH Software: The Best of Developer Tools]. NeoTeo. ABC. Archived from the original on 2014-09-30. Retrieved 2014-09-30.
  This article begins with the following paragraphs:
  En esta nueva sección hablaremos de las mejores empresas de desarrollo de aplicaciones, centrándonos en sus servicios no comerciales. En este estreno hablaremos de NCH Software una empresa que desde Canberra nos ha ofrecido muy buenas aplicaciones.
  Destacaremos sus herramientas más populares, su aplicación destacable y por supuesto, hablaremos un poco de la historia de la compañía.
  La Historia de NCH Software
  NCH Software fue fundada en el año 1993 en Canberra, Australia y en el año 2008 abre su oficina en Colorado Estados Unidos de Norte América.
  The article then discusses four of NCH Software's products: WavePad, Prism, Express Invoice, and Zulu.
  NeoTeo is published by the Spanish newspaper ABC. A NeoTeo article was republished at http://www.abc.es/20120202/tecnologia/abci-juegos-machine-201202020939.html and the ABC.es logo is on each page of NeoTeo.
  According to https://www.facebook.com/NeoTeo/info, "NeoTeo es una revista online sobre Tecnología" (NeoTeo is an online magazine about technology).
  See more articles from journalist Edgardo Fernandez at http://www.neoteo.com/author/edgardo-fernandez/.
There is sufficient coverage in
reliable sources to allow NCH Software to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

NCH Software passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage, which says:
The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization.
Columbia Daily Tribune and ABC's NeoTeo both have profiled the company in discussing its history and its products.
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience says:
The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.
NCH Software is based in Canberra in Australia. It received significant coverage in international sources in an American source (Columbia Daily Tribune) and a Spanish source (ABC's NeoTeo).
Cunard (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I always love it when USER:CUNARD posts these detailed evaluations, helps save lots of time in review. I agree with his keep arguments. Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:43, 19 February 2021 (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.