Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steinberg

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) Atlantic306 (talk) 17:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steinberg

[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)

Not notable; company fails WP:NCORP. I could only find press releases, routine coverage and passing mentions e.g. in sources discussing Steinberg's software. wumbolo ^^^ 13:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I just quickly went through the sources cited and did some searching online. While trade publications have lots to say about Steinberg's products they have almost nothing to say about the company itself. The company itself just isn't notable. Lovelylinda1980 (talk) 15:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yamaha Corporation with a small merge of information. glassdoor.co.uk Has the company turnover down between "$10 to $25 million (USD) per year" that makes Steinberg relatively small in the industry. But since it's owned by Yamaha I think redirect would be the best option. Govvy (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because a redirect and merge to Yamaha would be impractical; that article cannot accommodate the notable list of Steinberg products. Those products are widely covered in trade publications and are an essential part of music software, both historical and present. This article is the best place to present this material. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' because everyone who has been in the music/MIDI recording and editing software business or used the tools know very well that the company pioneered this business segment and is of historical notability, especially because of Steinberg Cubase. Nixdorf (talk) 07:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply/Comment I really don't know the technical side of the music industry, I thought this was a small company, but if what you say is correct and they are innovators and pioneers, perhaps this should be kept. Govvy (talk) 11:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it is correct, it's not a policy-based argument. wumbolo ^^^ 11:57, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm, Nixdorf and Michael Bednarek both went with keep, Wumbolo, instead of spouting policy, maybe you should ask them to update the article if they have the relevant sources at hand to cite. As I said above, I don't know this topic/industry. Govvy (talk) 12:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – this is a prominent company in the music industry, and has created some very popular products and created several industry standard technologies. There are plenty of additional sources that can be found online and in industry magazines. Brad v 23:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a source on the history of the company.[1] As the inventor of Audio Stream Input/Output (ASIO) and Virtual Studio Technology (VST) and creator of Cubase, this company has gotten coverage over the decades it has been around. A quick search yielded a history piece; going back to magazines like Keyboard and Electronic Musician throughout the years would no doubt yield more. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 00:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major co over decades, sourcing OK (nom is wide from mark). Widefox; talk 15:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the !votes above. Could use improvement, but no reason to delete. XOR'easter (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michael Bednarek, Nixdorf, Bradv and Mark viking. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 02:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michael Bednarek, Nixdorf, Bradv and Mark viking. Well Notable. Merge candidates have severe risk of WP:UNDUE. Yamaha obviously seems brand as significant and gives it some independence.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. My own search shows there is enough coverage to establish the notability. Sdmarathe (talk) 03:49, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are more than enough references that discuss the company in detail meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic passes WP:NCORP. HighKing 15:21, 19 September 2018 (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.