Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infor Global Solutions

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The result was Withdrawn by nominator. EliminatorJR ^Talk 21:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC) (non-admin closure).[reply]

Infor Global Solutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

CSD G11, but contested by User:Pdelongchamp Withdrawn. The rewrite of the article is good enough for now RogueNinja_talk 02:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete Spam for a NN company. TJ Spyke 02:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No longer reads like an advertisement. TJ Spyke 18:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article has adequate referencees. "With a revenue of $2.1 billion and over 8100 employees it is the 10th largest software company in the world" is a good assertion of notability. --Eastmain 02:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Adequate sources. Largest private software company in the world, 10th largest software company, 3rd largest business applications provider behind SAP and Oracle.Pdelongchamp 02:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Obviously notable from the article and adequately sourced, Was outrageously full of linkspam, but i just removed it all.DGG 05:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets notability requirements of WP:CORP. A couple of the provided sources are obvious press releases and don't serve to meet the notability standards, but the canada.com, System iNetwork and eWeek.com sources appear to be independent. Neil916 (Talk) 05:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as above. Nom seems confused as to the particulars of G11. It does not, as some would have it, prohibit articles about companies; it only prohibits corporate articles that "exclusively promote a company, product, group, service, or person ..." As it happens, the article peddles no products.  RGTraynor  14:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep - Well referenced, my citation request was fulfilled quickly.--Bryson^{{Talk}{Edits}} 15:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The rewrite did the trick. Realkyhick 19:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per everyone else. Acalamari 20:41, 17 April 2007 (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.