Weidner Communications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This article is confusing. Is it about a marketing company, a machine translation software, or the brothers (who have last names spelled differently)? 🄻🄰 11:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Language, Companies, Technology, and Software. 🄻🄰 11:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@लॉस एंजिल्स लेखक: I can't identify a deletion rationale in your nomination statement. Could you please provide one, else this nomination should be closed under WP:CSK#1. This appears to be a reasonably sourced article on a company, the machine translation software it produced, and its founders, which appear to be a reasonable set of topics to cover together. ~ A412 ^talk! 16:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep per WP:CSK#1 (nom has been editing, but has not provided any deletion rationale). ~ A412 ^talk! 18:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I wanted to open a discussion on this article because I don't think the company is notable, everything I can find about "Weidner Communications" seems to point back to this article. Note also the varying spelling of Weidner and Wydner.

  In the entire article, this is the portion about the company called "Weidner Communications":

  "During the mid-1980s Weidner Communications, Inc., (WCC), was the largest translation company by sales volume in the United States. (Margaret M. Perscheid, 1985) Later the Japanese sold Wydner's technology to Intergraph Corporation of Alabama who later sold it to Transparent Language, Inc. of New Hampshire. Bruce Wydner, the principal agent for the Inns of the Temple Inc., that retained the research and development rights to the Weidner Multi-lingual Word Processor, separated himself from his brother in early 1979 and no longer supplied any updated software developments. Weidner had offended his brother over a matter of having Eyring Research Institute send their bi-lingual employee to remove Wydners intellectual property from his home, of which Wydner claims was stolen from him."

  Everything else is about the software which mentions "Translation Associates" "Bravis International" "Eyring Research Institute" "Transparent Language, Inc." "Intergraph Corporation of Alabama" as all owning it.

  My rationale is that the article as it is currently written does not seem to be primarily about "Weidner Communications" and Weidner Communications itself seems to be a non-notable company that was one of 6+ to have something to do with the software. 🄻🄰 13:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the reply. I think there's a notable topic somewhere in here, although maybe not at the current title. Let me look around for other sources, because I largely can't figure out what the current article is actually citing. ~ A412 ^talk! 20:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm inclined to weak keep and move to Weidner Multi-Lingual Word Processing System. NY Times, InfoWorld, Inc, small mention in a translation technology encyclopedia, small mention in an excerpt from a language science history text. ~ A412 ^talk! 20:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While the nomination qualified for a speedy keep, lacking valid deletion reason, a subsequent comment by the nom provides the missing rationale.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TNT and WP:NCORP. I think the nomination by a relative newcomer here wasn't clearly stated. This is my whispering: It's so confusing a page that it would need to be deleted and started over again from scratch. The subject itself is not clearly notable; much of the content is sourced to (parenthetical primary sources like this). The creator of the page made their last edit almost 7 years ago, and apparently has left, so we can't ask for clarification. Is that correct? Bearian (talk) 07:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes that is what I meant. If the software is notable a new article would be better than trying to edit this one. 🄻🄰 20:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm still not clear on the arguments for deletion. If the subject fails NCORP, what is the point of starting from scratch? And if it meets NCORP, any editor may blank the current page and start from scratch without the aid of the Delete button, or simply reduce the article to a well-sourced stub. An assessment of the sources presented here would help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]