Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Innofactor

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. No prejudice towards renaming/refining the scope Mark Arsten (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Innofactor

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

searched for significant independent coverage in reliable sources and found none. as far as i can see fails WP:CORP _nonsense ferret 01:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Another one of them: ...develops and provides internet-based software solutions for European organisations in the private and public sectors. Innofactor provides solutions for enterprises and public administration in five main areas: Web and Communication Services, eServices and eCommerce, Document and Case Management, CRM, ERP and Operational Solutions, and Business Intelligence and Enterprise Search Solutions. This recitation of empty buzzwords is insufficient to make a case of minimal importance, too meaningless to improve by editing, and is unambiguous advertising. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Finnish publicly listed company with long history (by IT industry standards). Well known to most people who follow Finland's IT industry or small cap stock market. The current company is a remnant of iconic corporate failure from dot com bust. Its predecessor Westend_ICT was involved in high-profile criminal case about insider trading some years back. The key owner-managers were sent to jail and the case got lots of national press coverage. Finnish Wikipedia has two articles for this: fi:Westend_ICT and fi:Innofactor. jni (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds a lot like the predecessor company is the one we should have the article about - WP:NOTINHERITED. The presence of an article in Finnish wikipedia is irrelevant to this discussion. --_nonsense ferret 12:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If you look at the first few pages of these Google News Archive Search hits, there seem to be a lot of mentions of the company. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

mentions don't equal notability - are they references to significant independent coverage in reliable sources (not press releases/press packs or directory style lists)? If they are, which ones in particular? --_nonsense ferret 12:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Automatic Strikeout (T • C) 02:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 14:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, turn into article about Westend ICT. Westend seems notable. The existence of an article elsewhere isn't irrelevant, indeed provides citations and points to a better solution. – SJ + 02:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and consider the name. We do take into account the presence in another WP for a national subject. It isn't definitive, because all the WPs have slightly different standards: we are somewhat stricter about sourcing than many; we are considerably laxer about certain popular subjects. And we need to be aware that there may not be as much effort at removing promotion for a locally known enterprise or individual. But the two finnish articles are most certainly not promotion. Like Sj, I think one article could be justified. DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 26 March 2013 (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.