Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ceridian

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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ceridian

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

The page has nearly no references and is written as an advertisment. The company's predecessor has a page, as does its parents. There is no need for a separate page just for this. If not delete, then we should merge this elsewhere. Jeremy112233 ^{(Lettuce-jibber-jabber?)} 18:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are numerous in depth sources such as this one [1]. It would seem to meet WP:ORG.- Mr X 21:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The book appears to be self-published. What are the myriad of sources you are referring to? Jeremy112233 ^{(Lettuce-jibber-jabber?)} 22:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The publisher may be small press, which could be different, but I still don't see how a brief mention in a small press book is enough to qualify. Jeremy112233 ^{(Lettuce-jibber-jabber?)} 22:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are 16,000 books that at least mention Ceridian. I sampled a couple to see that at least some of them discuss the subject in some depth, for example [2]. Also, WP:ORGDEPTH advises, If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability.- Mr X 22:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While the 16,000 number is merely a google hit number which has no meaning, there is passing mention in several books. I stand by the page not needing its own page, but if we keep it, all the promotional cruft needs removing. Jeremy112233 ^{(Lettuce-jibber-jabber?)} 22:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a billion-dollar company for which there are ample sources such as this. Andrew (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. The article does not have a promotional tone, in my opinion, and instead asserts the company's significance. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:31, 16 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.