Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Configuresoft, Inc.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Configuresoft, Inc.

Configuresoft, Inc. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

No context given for notability, only contributers have questionable COI issues. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete If the article gives no context for notability, it qualifies for A7 under WP:CSD. However, despite this, I am actually neutral on the topic's notability itself, set aside from the article's assertion of notability. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 01:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Weak Keep This company does seem pretty notable. I may be wrong but they do have some type of reputation that seems like it should be mentioned. Somebody feel free to say otherwise since I am not sure. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 01:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The corporation has some high-profile customers, and is one of the major IT employers in the Colorado Springs area. I think this nomination may also be ratherWP:POINTy!-- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 09:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak deletekeep The article is no good, it has no claim of notability. However, there are some references, and if someone finds a source saying that it is a major IT employer in the Colorado Springs area, and a source naming those high-profile customers mentioned above, I think I'd sway to keep. --Minimaki (talk) 14:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
After the recent edits by JediLofti I'd say there is enough for an article. It does now say what makes it notable, and there's references - besides primary sources and a press release also including some actual third party coverage. The article of course could need more work, but that can be done by anyone at any time. --Minimaki (talk) 11:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: The article is boosterism, and therefore delete for advertising. They offer an Enterprise Solution Manager? Really? That's unique? The company may or may not pass, but the article is an ad, and we don't hang onto ads in article history just so, one day, an article by someone with a sense of encyclopedic writing, can come along and overwrite it. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The creator added some awards that where given to the company's product, which could indicate it's a notable product on its area. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The newly added references indicate some notability, probably enough to keep the article. The dubious Hoover link was taken out. Source indicates 170+ employees, so it's a mayor employer Delete unless a source saying it's a mayor employer is found. The Hoover's listing may have been added by company employees themselves. There is simply no actual reason listed saying why it's notable enough --Enric Naval (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC) --Enric Naval (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment I've added some sources about employment, their customers, and some of the award they've won. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 17:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Sources seem to indicate notability. MBisanz talk 02:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep by my reasoning on the same issue over at WP:COIN. WP:MULTI tells us it is better to keep discussion centralized, and simultaneously opening up an AfD and a COIN complaint on the same article is something that might be avoided in the future. The article has 12 reliable sources as references, the company employs 170 people and the product has won some awards. It could use more explanation of what Enterprise Configuration Manager actually does, though the related article at Serverware Group plc has more details on that. In the nominator's defence, the article didn't look quite so good until new material was added during this very debate. EdJohnston (talk) 03:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Don't see any blatant POV in there, there's no mention of it on the talk page, and also nothing in the article itself is tagged as such. "COI issues" need to addressed on the COI noticeboard, assuming they exist, not by deleting an article. Socrates2008 (Talk) 03:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Prior precedent is that an employer of this size is notable, the same way population centers are. Additionally, sufficient citation has been added from major independent sources to satisfy WP:N. The article needs help with a re-write, but I don't see a good reason for deletion. --BizMgr (talk) 18:34, 24 February 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.