Holos (software): Fails WP:GNG .  - UtherSRG (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing .  UtherSRG (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Notability To be honest, I have given up on this and fully expect it to be deleted.  The current reduced entry is now uninformative and effectively useless, having had mentions removed for both the US patents for its influential COA technology.  Apparently, it was notable to USPTO but not Wikipedia.  TonyP ( talk ) 16:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] TonyP , your edit appears to have messed with the main Articles for deletion log page (particularly on mobile).  Could you remove the "==" or add an additional "==" for your Notability section?  Conyo14 ( talk ) 16:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Sources I found so far: article about Holos use: InfoWorld 22 January 1996 (Volume 18, Issue 4), p. 63 Holos review (1/3 page): InfoWorld 1 March 1999 (Volume 21, Issue 9), p. 63 There are also short news in this magazine eg.  about Seagate/Holistic purchase (1 July 1996, p. 37; 4 November 1996, p. 6), or new release (5 August 1996, p. 35) If there is similar kind of coverage in other magazines of the late 90s, this article may be salvageable.  Pavlor ( talk ) 07:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: There seems to be some argument here about whether or not reliable sources exist that could establish this article subject's notability.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  16:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I remember it being really high-product and expensive product back in the 90's.  Its certainly has historical value as computing history.  Unfortunately seagate bought them and crystal reports and horsed both of them.  Definently a keep.  There should be coverage.  scope_creep Talk 10:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you help find more sources maybe?  The current ones are really bad and don't suggest the kind of notability you're referring to.  Steven Walling • talk 04:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  19:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - could be improved with further sources.  Salsakesh ( talk ) 22:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : is there any possibility of merging some of this to eg Online analytical processing ?  -- asilvering ( talk ) 21:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. I'm relisting a third time because there is not a vocal group of editors clamoring for Deletion and an editor has brought up the possibility of a Merger with another article...can that option get some consideration? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It passes GNG and there are enough sources to establish notability. Flutter Dash 344 ( talk ) 22:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Er, what sources are those? They aren't in the article. -- asilvering ( talk ) 22:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can those asserting notability and voting to keep please share references to look at?  - Indefensible ( talk ) 04:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is a rather sad AFD in my opinion; the article quality is poor and there are 3 keep votes with only Pavlor giving sources, none of which seem easily accessible.  Definitely could use some improvement and cleanup.  I would agree with merging it except part of this article is about the company which is not appropriate for the online analytical processing article, it would need a 2nd target such as Crystal Decisions which is another mess itself.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 19:17, 30 August 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus