Deletion of Applied Logic Corporation

Comment: edit conflict}}Company meets our notability requirement . Pre-internet company so sources were hard to come by, however there is Computerworld magazine and some book entries. And notability is not temporary
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BARE)

Comment: Thoe company is known for its timesharing systems and its automated theorem provers. In the timesharing domain, https://ban.ai/multics/doc/GuideToTimesharing_Jan73.pdf Auerbach's guide to timesharing, p. 68-69 has about a page on the company and its timesharing services as well as mentions throught the book. https://physicstoday-scitation-org.ucsf.idm.oclc.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.3022231 Physics Today, SHOPPING FOR A TIME-SHARING SERVICE, p.42-43 also displays them as one of the major timesharing services. In the theorem proving field, http://www.cs.cornell.edu/courses/cs4860/2012fa/MacKenzie-TheAutomationOfProof.pdf  by Mackenzie has a few paragraphs about the SAM series of provers and notes the "SAM's lemma" was "was widely hailed as the first contribution of automated reasoning systems to mathematics." https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-73433-8_24 A Short Survey of Automated Reasoning (a few paragraphs) noted that the SAM series was one of the first interactive theorem provers and and had influence on subseequent theorem provers. An https://www.sec.gov/news/digest/1968/dig123168.pdf SEC newsletter p.2 from the time has some basics on the company financials and services. There was one other source, the book "Mathematical Software" by John R Rice, 1971, that looks like it may have some more coverage, but I don't have access. All the sources I had access to demonstrate notability and impact of the company, and I think add up to modest but sufficient notability to have an article per . Research was a part of this company's impact and independent sources noting that are excellent and on target for notability; in this I disagree with some of the above editors dismissive attitudes towards scholarly publications. The article itself is a well-referenced stub and has no problems. A notable topic and an article with no major problems suggests keeping the article. --&#123;&#123;u&#124
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: u|Peter Flass}}' |good faith attempts at adding scholarly journal references are useful, but scholarly journal references do '''not''' establish |notability unless they are an '''at length''' and '''in-depth''' article ''about'' this company to write more than a stub- or start-class article, per  and . No evidence otability|notability is met here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF||WP:NCORP||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:SIGCOV||WP:N)