- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.
The result was delete. Softer deletion, as there have not been much discussion. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Be Informed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable company. In my opinion, Gartner and Forrester citations aren't indicators of notability. The rest of the references in this article are either WP:SPSes or are used to reference quotations not about the company, but about the industry/technology. Nothing I could find though searching points to notability of this company. Finally, the current form seems quite like an advertisement, and even if the company was notable, it would require a fundamental re-write. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 16:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably Delete The article is written like an advertisement, and doesn't really contain any significant coverage by independent sources. I found an article that says that the company was founded in 2002, and has 130 employees. Wikipedia's corporate notability guidelines state the following: A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization. I willing to change my mind if more independent sources can be found, but based I what I've seen, I feel that this company has not met that standard. NJ Wine (talk) 02:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 06:48, 13 June 2012 (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.