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.
Borderline-to-non-notable company, most citations I could find were to primary sources, article appears to have primarily been written by the company itself. (If the decision is 'keep', it should at very least be stubbed so someone can rewrite it not as an ad.)
rahaeli (
talk) 12:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
NorthAmerica1000 01:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Leaning to keep. Looked at a number of sources, but most were healthcare or IT industry publications that might be considered more advertorial than independent journalism. Left me with impression that is a large corporation that might be notable but could use more independent, reliable sources.
Canuckle (
talk) 05:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Mz7 (
talk) 04:46, 21 June 2014 (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.