Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newgen Software

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) Esquivalience ^t 00:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Newgen Software

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

Not notable. The Economic Times article is apparently PR, for this is a minor company with no significant products. DGG ( talk ) 03:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a news search returns a LOT of hits, but I think all of them are press releases, and therefore unsuitable. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per the previous AfD less than 5 months ago, significant reliable source coverage exists and therefore notability is established. Really it isn't even close. Pinging previous AfD participants: @VMS Mosaic, ShulMaven, and Lakun.patra: --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also pinging @Timtrent: who accepted the article at AfC. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. DGG has a point regarding the promotional nature, perhaps press release material, in the Economic Times article. At AFC we do sometimes make mistakes. If I have, so be it. If I have not, so be it. So thank you for pinging me. I will let others decide. Fiddle Faddle 15:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nom for the first AFD I prefer to remain neutral. But I seriously doubt its notability. Most of the sources are press releases. There are some references but are just passing by remarks or about Carlyle group investing. Other than that could not find anything worthy. Will let other editors decide. Thanks for the ping ThaddeusB. Lakun.patra (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep same as last AfD. Including searches on the company's products turns up endless hits (mostly minor but not all) including books, case studies on the software, etc. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Such as? All I could find was trivial passing mentions or press releases. Certainly nothing to write a neutral article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here are a few substantive mentions: [1] [2] [3] [4] Though I'd like to see more coverage, I think being covered by Forrester Research and Gartner are pretty good. Cinteotl (talk) 08:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As the closer of the previous AFD that looks like it was closed perhaps a little too early, Meh we're human and all make mistakes, Anyway Keep per most of Cinteotl's findings. –Davey2010^Talk 14:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like I've got a minority opinion on this one, but of the sources provided by Cinteotl, the only one (in my view) that is not a press release is this one, which relegates Newgen to a single quotation from its founder, saying nothing about the company, what it is, or what it does. That's not really suitable to be able to write a balanced article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope you're right - that one is useless but IMHO the rest are generally fine. –Davey2010^Talk 10:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The Article is simply a stub and clearly does not qualify BLP at all. Article can be recreated after any notable invention is launched and secondary sources become available Dormantos (talk) 12:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um, it isn't a biography, so your rationale makes no sense. Perhaps you accidently commented on the wrong AfD? Also, being a stub is not a reason for deletion and secondary sources are already available. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up: This newly registered account has left the very similar deletion rationales (almost every one a "strong delete") on dozens of AfDs in rapid fashion. Likely he did not read any of the articles. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2015 (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.