Talk:Apperian

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).

Apple Inc. Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Mac, iOS and related topics 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.Apple Inc.Wikipedia:WikiProject Apple Inc.Template:WikiProject Apple Inc.Apple Inc. articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Notability

Even though I am really glad that the article is neutral in tone and peacock-free, I can't see anything notable about the company there. What is so special about it? Did they invent something extraordinary, are the first to use something, the largest in something? WikiHannibal (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well they do not need to be superlative in anything, but if they have a marketing department that is halfway competent, there is probably a litany of "awards" they could list. :-) Seriously, notability on Wikipedia means independent reliable sources. There are a few sources, so it probably comes down to the "depth" argument: if the coverage is just "in passing" or really substantial, which is a subjective argument. They do seem larger than the "two kids and an app" company that are pretty clearly not notable, but indeed this is not IBM. I can see both sides on this, so if you feel strongly, do a nomination to WP:Articles for deletion and try to get a broader consensus. Thanks for any help. W Nowicki (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]