Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intentional Software

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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Intentional Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

notability not established for defunct company Ysangkok (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete No indication of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep Struck !vote made in error above, was not my intention. While most of the references in the article rely almost exclusively on interviews and quotations from the founder or company announcements (therefore failing the criteria for establishing notability since those references are not intellectually independent) This technologypreview article meets the criteria. It is an in-depth article and although it contains quotations and interviews with the founder and customers, it contains intellectually independent analysis and opinions and therefore qualifies. There are also a number of books such as Dreaming in Code by Scott Rosenberg (page 208) that also meet the criteria. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

  People write about Intentional Software primarily because it is where Simonyi was. But in the link you gave, you can see that Intentional Software had nothing to publicly show, the WYSIWYG stuff was vaporware. Just like in Martin Fowler's article. I don't see the value in having an article about a company that was supposed to deliver something big, but never did. This could be a section in Simonyi's article. --Ysangkok (talk) 13:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Clear keep. At acquisition, a 15-yo company with over 50 staff, public papers about their methodology and approach, and plenty of national news mentions -- however vague. The acquisition by MSFT along w/ all staff is testament to notability, not a reason to erase. – SJ + 18:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• I have no opinion about anything else, but must point out that having over 50 staff comes nowhere near being an argument for notability. Your local supermarket probably has over 50 staff, but it is almost certainly not notable. There is nothing in either Wikipedia policy or common sense that says that a tech company is more notable than a retail company. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
• Microsoft has acquired 205 companies. Many of these blue links are just redirect to MSFT product name that was created with the acquired resources. But at least most of the blue linked companies resulted in an actual product. Unlike Intentional Software :P --Ysangkok (talk) 13:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 22:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

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.