- 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. Consensus is to delete the article as written on Idera Software as there is no clear demonstration of notability of that company. However, there is no prejudice against the creation of an article on the parent company, BBS Technologies, provided notability is proved with reliable sources (not press releases as noted in Wikipedia:CORP) SilkTork *YES! 23:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Idera Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Spam from a COI editor. No evidence this passes WP:CORP Triplestop x3 01:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tagged for speedy deletion as blatant advertising from a representative of the company. Alexius08 (talk) 02:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait a second. An article being spammy is not a reason to be deleted, nor is an apparent COI. They seem to be relevant enough to get news coverage, too. Let's not throw the baby out with the spam water here, or whatever the appropriate metaphor is. JDoorjam JDiscourse 03:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment: Triplestop, you say as a reason for deleting that there is "no evidence this passes WP:CORP," but the article has seven linked references to secondary sources. Can you reconcile this information? JDoorjam JDiscourse 03:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: see where all of those citations are used? At the Awards section and nowhere else. It lacks information on the background of the company (no history section was seen). With most of the article discussing about its products and its awards, what else can we say about the subject? Alexius08 (talk) 03:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- These references are trivial awards that don't really say much towards the company's notability. The awards themselves are not that big either. Triplestop x3 14:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment: Triplestop, you say as a reason for deleting that there is "no evidence this passes WP:CORP," but the article has seven linked references to secondary sources. Can you reconcile this information? JDoorjam JDiscourse 03:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weakdelete: The main problem I have with this article is that it's not clear what its subject is: Idera Software or BBS Technologies. For instance, several of the articles being referenced don't even mention Idera—they're actually about BBS Technologies, instead. A little bit of research helped me find out that Idera is a division of BBS Technologies, but I certainly couldn't have learned that from this article. On top of that, several of the cited articles are just press releases (check the Reuters one, for instance). A Google News Search for Idera Sofware that leaves out press releases ends up showing nothing at all. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Based on the news coverage. The awards must be notable to have their finalists listed in major newspapers. This software gets enough coverage. Dream Focus 16:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no substantial coverage; some of the "news" is actually press releases. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:59, 27 July 2009 (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.