Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Management Dynamics

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. J04n(talk page) 12:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Management Dynamics

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

This jargon-filled advert for a software/logistics company seems to fail WP:NCORP, particularly WP:CORPDEPTH, cited mainly to its own sources, or to a couple of highly specialist publications. It is now rebranded as Amber Road, but I can't see sufficient significant news coverage about either. Time to go, I think. Sionk (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We just re-submitted a new entry for the Management Dynamics page. Could you please review and hold off on deleting this page?Cline.brown (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Extensive improvements have been made to this article addressing in particular the Notability of the sources as well as the neutrality of the article's content. The company name has been updated throughout and unnecessary external links removed. I believe the article now meets WP:CORPDEPTH standards as all current references are from newsworthy, 3rd party sources.Cline.brown (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaca tion 9 00:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article has reliable secondary sources that indicate its notability, and it (barely) passes WP:NCORP. Andrew³²⁷ 00:31, 28 February 2013 (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.