Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quintiq

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 as this seems well sourced and if there's any further need for deletion, we'll get to that when it comes later. (NAC) SwisterTwister talk 04:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quintiq

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

This article should be deleted from wikipedia because it was created with spam blacklisted references, the SPA editor who created this page is clearly undisclosed paid editor with COI and violating wikipedia terms of service. The sole purpose of this article is to use wikipedia to promote the corp and disrupting Wikipedia's integrity.

There is no significance or notability proved by 2 references in article. Google search shows only press releases and passing casual mentions in news reports. "passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization" does not make a corporation notable see last point of WP:ORGDEPTH. The organization is not significant enough to have enough sources. Many search results on google are about the same word for other corps or use of word and combination of press releases, event mentions, routine coverage but not WP:ORGDEPTH. Drewziii (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was easily able to find good RS about the company: Cisco case study, Ernst and Young, lengthy review in sector journal. LaMona (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: LaMona's sources plus NY Times interview, Fortune article. I pruned this article in July and no one has come back to re-spamify it so probably safe on that front. Vrac (talk) 23:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to be quite a bit out there on News. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I took some time and fleshed out the article with sources provided by LaMona and Vrac, plus some I found. IMO notability is now well-established. I think the promotional tone is all gone, too, but I'll let someone else remove those tags if they feel it's appropriate. The article could still stand to have a section on its corporate culture, which is interesting and has sources available, but there's only so much writing about businesses I can do in one day. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 05:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 8 October 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.