Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Column Technologies

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. Obvious a keep vote from an editor with a paid stake in the existence of the article should be given less weight then disinterested delete votes grounded in policy Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Column Technologies

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

Non-notable company that fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. 1 or 2 good sources, but not sufficiently many. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm the paid editor that created this article. Column Technologies is indeed notable for its case management software, which is being used to help countries deal with human trafficking. One reason I believed this company merited notability is because of the recognition it received for its work. At the time I wrote it, I had included a full section explaining what is case management as this page, Case_management, did not explain it nor have any bearing on it. Hence, the "What is Case Management" section that was deleted gave context to the company and its work and thus helped to show its notability. Perhaps we could address this situation on the Talk page versus deleting this article outright. I propose reinstating the deleted section for discussion purposes and then having the article revised based on feedback. Djhuff (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The "What is Case Management" section was a general introduction to Case Management, it was not directly linked to the company, and so had little relevance to the article- it should instead be at an article on Case Management. Similarly for the "Timothy Yario" biography in the Company History section- the only relevant facts are those related to the company, and that one fact (the founding date) was using LinkedIn, an unreliable source. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I originally thought so too, but if you read the existing Case Management article and then read up on how Case Management software is being used, they're two totally different things. Which is why I included it in the Column Tech article -- to give context to what the company is doing. Djhuff (talk) 16:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If people want to learn about Case Management, then they'd go to the Case Management article. If they want to learn about Column Technologies, they go to the Column Technologies and don't want it full of things that aren't directly relevant. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're not understanding what I'm saying. Two types of case management exist and the existing page has absolutely nothing to do with the case management Column Technologies provides -- which is why they're notable. This is why I've proposed not deleting the article and instead, figuring out how best to communicate "what is case management," the section that was deleted. I do believe people should have an understanding of the two different types, yes? Djhuff (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can't decide. I did enough editing and trimming-down of this article to have a vested interest, but l will let the WP:Community make the final decision as to whether this outfit is WP:Notable or not. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:56, 1 May 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, Natg 19 (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not seeing any there there. The sources in the article are all press releases, primary, casual mentions, no mention of the subject at all or broken links. Absent is so much as a single source that would satisfy the GNG, let alone the "significant coverage" the GNG requires. Meets none of the criteria of WP:ORG. Just as well the "case management" stuff was stripped out; that'd be WP:COATRACK. Nha Trang ^Allons! 18:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per NukeThePukes clearly lacks WP:SIGCOV and fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:54, 13 May 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.