This page is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology
This page is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the page attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
Urbourbo (talk·contribs) has been paid by Identiv. Their editing has included contributions to this article.
Thanks @CNMall41: for following up on the above discussion with your comment here. That is probably the best source as per my current knowledge. I'm thinking there might be reports from financial analysts as well, but the problem is that they are often not freely available. I'm taking some action here already and will add if/when I get access to some, but any input regarding where/how to obtain such reports could be useful. Either way, for a company of this size and age that's also listed on Nasdaq, personally I can feel that it should be considered notable even without further sources, and of value to Wikipedia readers to get access to a verifiable and concise text about the subject. For others to assess though of course. All the best, /Urbourbo (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you "feel that it should be considered notable," but we need to have the sources per WP:ORGCRIT in order to show that it is notable. Reports from financial analysis is not going to meet that criteria, even if readily available. Even publicly traded companies are not considered notable based on their financial statements. I see from the talk page discussion on the company Wiki project you were unable to provide me with the additional sources. If you can do so here and resubmit I will be glad to take another look but unless there are sources that pass ORGCRIT, it likely will not pass AfC.--CNMall41 (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've done quite some research but I'm afraid we'll have to do without such additional sources for now. Any way, I've now removed the Products section as the only way I can see to make the concise article to appear as less of an "advertisement" as per the decline note. Hence, I'm taking my chances to resubmit in the hope that editors will find the current sources acceptable for minimal notability. All the best, /Urbourbo (talk) 11:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Following this autumn's added media about Identiv, I've now added another in-depth interview with its new CEO that I suggest add to the notability. I've also made some minor updates, and expanded the References section, which includes the sources that I suggest contribute to notability per WP:ORGCRIT as far as I can understand. Looking forward to any questions. /Urbourbo (talk) 22:32, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Johannes Maximilian, Many thanks for speedily investing your time in my draft. I was happy to learn that you agree the subject should be notable.
Regarding the sources, many thanks for the idea to use Genius.de, which apparently surfaces more sources than I was able to identify via Google. The problem seems to be that most of them are behind paywalls, but I've now added one of the better (from FAZ) to the reference list. Hope you agree this is now sufficient to prove the subject's notability.
Regarding the language, the problem with solution is that its heavily used in the industry in general (and, more meaningful there than one might think) as well as in the sources, so it's difficult to avoid completely. However, I have now tried to adjust some language details a bit (including re-adding the section you removed but with adjusted language), and made sure to wikilink the only remaining mention of solution (like with articles in, say, Chemistry, where concepts unknown to the wider audience are explained by wikilinking). Hopefully you'll agree it's now at least a bit more comprehensible for a non-business audience. Just let me know if there's anything more you feel needs to change to motivate publishing.
