Talk:ABBYY

The straightforward ABBYY title has also been protected since June 2022 [1]. AllyD (talk) 19:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@AllyD and Bbb23: The article was rewritten from scratch by translation from https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Redirect/revision/39216011 Then the article was significantly revised to strengthen the demonstration of the notability of the article's subject. It is really notable company:

• It has a long, more than 30-year history
• It has developers offices in the USA and several European countries, including Ukraine, Germany, Serbia
• It has representative offices in 15 countries
• It has 1000+ employees
• It sells its products to almost 200 countries worldwide
• It has partnership agreements with PwC and many others huge companies
• The article about the company exists in 19 Wikipedias, including German, French, Spanish, Polish and others
• The importance and notability of the company in its global market segments (IDP, Process Intelligence, OCR) is recognized by leading analytical companies
• Its notability has been demonstrated in the article by citing substantial coverage in many secondary independent sources like Bloomberg, Authority Magazine, Knowledge Management World, Robotic Process Automation Master, VentureBeat, Information & Data Manager magazine and many others
• Most of the citations in the article are from publications that appeared after April 2020

P.S. Google Search for ABBYY demonstrates 7 500 000 + results --Perohanych (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Er... putting a promotional link in your contribution to the Talk page does suggest you're not entirely unbiased. Deb (talk) 10:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

"to let Wikipedians know about a really powerful tool to share free knowledge" That's a textbook definition of promotion. Deb (talk) 14:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

@Deb: Well, it was my sincere wish to share my experience and my knowledge with the aim to empower Wikipedians. People write articles about notable actors, they love, I wrote an article about a notable company, I love. Where is a bias? From now on, I will never express my attitude to the subject of articles on their talk pages. I did not know that it was forbidden. I have hided the paragraphs, you may delete them.

Is there any policy explaining how to remove protection from an article so that the {{Db-move}} template can be placed? --Perohanych (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

You won't be able to do it yourself but I am willing to do it as long as you understand the guidelines. I will be watching it to make sure it remains neutral. Deb (talk) 09:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

So what should I do? --Perohanych (talk) 07:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Just follow the guidelines, on everything. There are no exceptions. Deb (talk) 07:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any specific comments? I just want to understand what exactly I should do next. --Perohanych (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I propose to delete a {{notability}} template from the article and move the article to "ABBYY" --Perohanych (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

2024 transformation

All 5 references to sources in the "2024 transformation" section refer to the X and Telegram social networks, or to assumptions or feelings that arose from someone who was laid off.

Any quantitative estimate (200, 300, or 500) of those fired is speculation.

And in general, is it worth using Russian sources for this section? The company has no presence in Russia at all. In the context of dismissal of seemingly only Russians, Russian sources cannot be reliable or even neutral.

All information about the latest events in the company is based on anonymous sources and is at least guesses, assumptions, etc. Perohanych (talk) 07:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Sources, in particular Russian Forbes, refer directly to witnesses of the events. These are respectable media, including those independent of the Russian authorities and opposition ones. It is a former Russian company and Russian-language sources are relevant. Anton n (talk) 18:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I doubt the independence of Russian sources Forbes Russia, in particular Russian Forbes, especially after reading this article in The Washington Post: Russian tycoon claims he is behind Forbes purchase, audiotapes show --Perohanych (talk) 08:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

All the sources are based on an assumption. One unnamed employee of the company does not know who was fired and who was not fired. This is non-public information, and usually companies cannot publish it. But that person can see the list of people who attended that meeting and make an ASSUMPTION. But a guess from an anonymous employee is by no means a reliable source. Also take into account the influence of personal emotions. --Perohanych (talk) 08:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

We can rightfully doubt the information of these mass layoffs based on citizenship; it is contrary to the EU treaties, and we would then have sources in Hungarian (always under scrutiny when it comes to EU rules), and Cyprus confirming the information. Furthermore, even if this information is confirmed, the propaganda comments by State Duma deputy is not relevant. Jmjfat (talk) 09:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)