Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EPAM Systems (2nd nomination)

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 keep. No consensus to delete - there are reliable sources which directly deal with the company in more than trivial detail. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EPAM Systems

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

Notability is not established. Another provider of offshore software engineering outsourcing services. The article is mostly based on primary sources, trivial mentions and TOP N entries. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Keep - The sources provided do seem to provide more than just routine coverage of the company, especially [1], [2], and [3]. The article can be improved, but I do believe notability is established. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but did you read them? InformationWeek mentions the company once in an article about another company and Hoovers is a trivial directory entry (there is one for each publicly traded company). The problem with BusinessWeek is harder to explain: though the article is indeed devoted to company, but in fact discusses the business in Belarus with drawing EPAM as example. The underlying idea of WP:GNG is that notability of topic is presumed if it was found notable by reliable sources, but I'm not sure that using the company as example is exactly the implication of notability. Also worth noting the fact that it is entirely based on EPAM's employee's quotes. Still, even if so, it is the only source of multiple needed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the previous AfD is an interesting reading: it was closed as keep with consensus on the facts that the article is edited and can possibly grow into useful content. Evidently, apart from content exclusion and minor updates of arguable appropriateness for encyclopedia, nothing has changed since. That is: there is no hope that this article will ever turn into useful encyclopedic content. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no time limit on improvment. DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources? The article clearly fails WP:GNG with only one source being arguably useful for the purpose of determining notability. That's not to mention WP:NCORP. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:37, 26 March 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, B music ian 06:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just went through the article formatting and proof-reading footnotes. All of the references imply the lack of this company's notability. The InformationWeek and BusinessWeek articles are of the kind "did you know such thing ever existed?", Global Services Media's article is "they merged, but even together they are hard to notice on the market" and the rest of references are directory entries or other passing mentions explicitly forbidden in WP:NCORP. In the lack of relies from people voting on keep side above I just can't get the reason this company can be possibly though to be notable for. BTW, all the Top N lists where the company received the place higher then 100 in its industry are conducted by unknown firms and rely on explicitly on list members' information. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage is sufficient to clear the WP:GNG bar. There is the BusinessWeek piece and the one or two other that go a bit beyond passing mentions. Sandstein 07:45, 8 April 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.