Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bizagi

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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bizagi

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company, fails WP:CORP. All the references are self-referential. Virtually all the editing was done by special purpose accounts. The article was prodded in 2012; prod was removed by one of the SPAs. In a search I found press releases and blog comments; the closest thing to independent coverage was this from TechWorld. MelanieN (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

07:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bizagi is a Notable company and complies with WP:CORP. The company has been recognized as one of Top 100 tech companies to follow in Europe by Red Herring in 2014 and has notable customers like Adidas, Old Mutual, Its products are well known in the segment were they compete in (Business Process Management), being referenced in current research firms reports and events like Gartner, Forrester Research, Fraunhofer IESE and others, the article has been edited to provide neutral description of the company and their products, finally many self-references have been change to third party sites references. Daniel.Diaz.Col (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC) — Daniel.Diaz.Col (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:03, 9 April 2015 (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.