Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cadencequest

: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. Cirt (talk) 04:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

=[[Cadencequest]]=

:{{la|Cadencequest}} ([{{fullurl:Cadencequest|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cadencequest}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Company written up by an SPA. No refs. Are they notable? - Sgroupace (talk) 02:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. All Google News shows about is press releases from the company. Pegasus «C¦T» 04:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I added a reference to article published on BNET BUSINESS NETWORK Gparra (talk) 04:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. The reference added seems to be a press release - Business Wire seems to specialise in distributing them. The only sources that I can find, apart from the usual company directories, adverts, job listings, etc, were the following: [http://www.bisnow.com/washington_dc_tech_news_story.php?p=1410], [http://washington.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2006/03/20/story7.html], [http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Enterprise-Applications/JDE-Launches-BI-QuickStart-Program/], [http://www.zdnet.fr/actualites/internet/0,39020774,2135059,00.htm], [http://www.atypon-link.com/AAA/doi/abs/10.2308/api.2008.8.1.1?journalCode=api]. They are respectively: 1 - A brief mention of the company in a newsletter. 2 - A brief mention in a newspaper article, focused on Michael Saylor and MicroStrategy. 3 - A brief mention in a article. 4 - What seems to be a trivial mention in a (french) article about an anti-spam product. 5 - An academic article that from the google search (the paper requires subscription to access), seems to quote a member of the company. I don't consider that to constitute significant coverage, in reliable sources, independent of the company, required to indicate notability. In particular 1 and 3 in particular may not be reliable. Silverfish (talk) 18:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 21:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Source is a press release. --Banime (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. No material claim of notability, no material 3d party references. Bongomatic (talk) 06:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete unimportant company, created by a SPA. -- how do you turn this on 23:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

: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.