Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trillium Software

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. A redirect to Harte-Hanks seems unexceptional though, so I have done it. Black Kite (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trillium Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 08:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Ditto. --Bmusician 11:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article previously had references to both Gartner and Forrester reports on data quality tools from 2006 (still online) but these were deleted in 2009 on grounds that they were outdated. My thought is that it would have been better to alter the text to specify the year of the reports rather than delete the references altogether (notability - and references - are not temporary)? One can find various other references to Trillium in Google Books, for example by combining the name with "data mining". AllyD (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge & redirect into the parent Harte-Hanks article. AllyD (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn -- Y not? 15:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: the (1) unintelligible article about (2) the subdivision of a company with no sources (3) neither in the article nor (4) in the wild (market reports and press releases don't count). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:21, 23 February 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.