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. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 23:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC) reply

PKWARE, Inc. (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

PKWARE is the creator of the PKZIP compression software. PKZIP may be notable, but PKWARE fails to meet our strict inclusion criteria.

Our PKWARE article was created in early 2010 by User:Argruber, a COI single-purpose account probably belonging to a paid editor. It contained atrocious copy such as this: "PKWARE provides data-centric security solutions [...] and is known for its data compression and file management solutions." For one full year, nobody dared remove the "new unreviewed article" tag. I don't know why User:Banej removed the tag a year later; maybe s/he forgot to check for COIs.

Just because PKZIP is notable doesn't mean that PKWARE should be considered notable. WP:PRODUCT says: "Note that a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right. In this case, an article on the product may be appropriate, and notability of the company itself is not inherited as a result."

The company has been around for a good long time: for about three decades. Still, it's quite small. It only has about 100 employees. And, more importantly, I looked through the first three pages of Google News results. I saw some local/special-interest coverage (which doesn't count towards notability), and at least a couple of press releases, but nothing which convinced me that the company meets our inclusion criteria.

Years of experience have shown that, even if you clean up an article about a non-notable company, it often attracts new paid editors after the clean-up. Paid editors are persistent, and often can win any edit war. It's better to instead delete all articles about non-notable companies.

Please delete. — Unforgettableid ( talk) 18:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The article is a bit promotional, but that can be fixed easily enough. It's tricky to locate sources completely distinct from pkzip, their most famous product, but there's enough coverage to make them notable: PC Mag, PC Mag, PC Mag (yes, again), Infoworld, Infoworld, this book, Computergram International, Knight-Ridder. They also got some coverage from local sources in Milwaukee: [1], [2]. Although these articles often do discuss pkzip, they also discuss PKWARE itself, such as the litigation between them and SEA Inc. Besides that, I will say that PKWARE is a historically important company in the history of computing. They may not have the same name recognition and importance as their contemporaries (such as Microsoft, IBM, and Apple), but their legacy can not be swept away as no longer relevant. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 02:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep. It's not a company I've heard or read a lot about recently but there was plenty of coverage 'back in the day', and I agree with NinjaRobotPirate - the company has real world historical importance, and since we can source the article I see no reason to delete. -- Michig ( talk) 07:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep: The RS coverage is significant. Vrac ( talk) 15:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep significant RS coverage per NinajRobotPirate. Royal broil 01:57, 15 December 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.