Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caliper Corporation

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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caliper Corporation

No question this company exists, but there's no evidence it's a notable company. Ghits and news hits are primarily press releases and brief mentions that don't establish notability per WP:CORP Also including:

TransCAD for the Web (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a non-notable software whose PROD was contested without comment by the article creator

StarM 02:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 02:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 02:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Found this company mentioned in several reliable sources, some I can only see abstracts, Merge TransCAD for the Web into company article:
- Cline, Michael E. "Mapping Solutions Under $500." Online 29.3 (May 2005): 27-30.
- Gimpel, Jim. "Computer Technology and Getting Out the Vote." Campaigns & Elections 24.8 (Aug. 2003): 39.
- Pinkston, Will. "Software Makes Redistricting Easier, Accessible." Wall Street Journal - Eastern Edition 237.80 (24 Apr. 2001): B1.
- Livingston, Brian. "Update your business market analysis with 21st century data." InfoWorld 20.52/01 (28 Dec. 1998): 32.
- "Tech." Planning 64.7 (July 1998): 31.
- Sullivan, Ann C. "Urban simulations." Architecture 87.5 (May 1998): 212.
- "New products: Application development." Computerworld 30.1 (26 Dec. 1995): 75.
- Greenberg, Ilan. "Caliper SDK adds mapping data to apps." InfoWorld 17.48 (27 Nov. 1995): 32.
- Brown, Bruce. "Maptitude: Mapping software with low hurdles." PC Magazine 14.15 (12 Sep. 1995): 56.
- Coffee, Peter. "Maptitude shows aptitude for informative charting." PC Week 12.31 (07 Aug. 1995): 83.
- Somers, Asa. "Maptitude: Maps and a whole lotta data." PC Magazine 14.12 (27 June 1995): 62.
- Marshall, Patrick. "Maptitude offers GIS aptitude at low cost." InfoWorld 17.21 (22 May 1995): 92.
- Morrow-Jones, Charles R., et al. "SOFTWARE REVIEWS." Professional Geographer 44.1 (Feb. 1992): 103-108. --Captain-tucker (talk) 07:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment that proves it exists, not that it's notable. I find it hard to argue keep on those grounds since you said, you can only see abstracts. No one is questioning its existence, but I don't know that those meet WP:CORP. StarM 15:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge the several articles about its individual products into the article about the business itself. The sources mentioned seem to indicate significant independent coverage of at least one of the products in widely distributed consumer publications. Maptitude seems to be the most notable product, so alternative some portion of this could be merged into that article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the company does seem to be a major one in the field from the references. As forthe products, one could consider merging, but that should be discussed on the talk page there.DGG (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Captain Tucker confirmed it passes WP:RS. The article needs better referencing, to be certain, but I don't agree with the belief that this is a non-notable company. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2008 (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.