Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenText

OpenText

OpenText (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Company's page is full of spam and self promotion. It has been suggested several times in the talk page that it be deleted. Cmurphey80 (talk) 05:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• Keep The article passes WP:COMPANY. If someone feels that the article looks like an advertisement, then he should delete the advertising content from the article. Bharatiya29 (talk) 06:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• Keep, meets WP:CORP just fine with existing material, there appear to be many others available. Clean up is no reason for deletion. This also appears to be a bad faith nomination by a COI editor. Kuru (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

*Delete It really doesn't meet anything for notability right now. The company talk page say says it all. I am not a bad faith editor and have no interest in any new pages as of now. I've also nominated my own page for a speedy deletion. I think Kuru has an interest in keeping this page up for whatever reason. If the page is updated with decent references I'd be ok with keeping it. However, it looks terrible right now with a bunch of information of the companies acquisitions. What value does it show? How are they notable? I know nothing of them and had never heard of them before seeing them on wikipedia.--Cmurphey80 (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Your nomination is sufficient; you need not "vote" twice. Just add comments like this. Establishing notability is as simple as a few significant coverages in reliable sources. Are you unable to locate those on the page; have you looked yourself for any others? I'm afraid that your personal knowledge of the firm's existence is not a workable yardstick for notability. My interest in the page is clearly noted in the article's edit history - de-spamming after someone overlinked the article someplace else, and then bookmarking the page in case they came back. I likely have thousands of firms watchlisted like this. Kuru (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Speedy keep: The article is far from ideal, but notability is established by the sources. I think the real reason here is that Cmurphey80's own article Draft:DiCentral Corporation (which appears to be a competitor of OpenText) was rejected due to notability, so (s)he's on a WP:POINT spree. First (s)he PRODed the article, then (s)he added the speedy deletion template and now we're here with AfD. -- intgr [talk] 07:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Wow. That article was not mine. You can't tell because I also put it up for deletion and you'll note DiCentral is already gone. I went to each of the sources for OpenText and they don't meet the WP:COMPANY guidelines. Lets go through the cites and sources: 1. Annual Report - made by the company for the company - FAIL 2. Meets the requirements 3. Passing Mention - FAIL 4. Broken Link - FAIL 5. no mention of opentext at all - FAIL 6. Broken Link - FAIL 7. Passes. So, you are are saying that a company with only TWO good sites would pass the notable guildlines? I'll also note that on the pages talk there have been several suggestions for deletion. So, It's not personal and I'm not on a delete spree. I did it this way so that I could follow the proper deletion route instead of speedy delete. --Cmurphey80 (talk) 13:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• Keep: @Cmurphey80: Ok, I'm really sorry that I rushed to conclusions based on your edit history without checking in depth. As far as notability goes, the guidelines require "multiple" qualifying sources. "Multiple" generally means more than one, and deletion discussions tend to agree that two qualifying sources are sufficient. In addition to the 2 qualifying sources in the article, it's easy to find more news stories by just searching for "OpenText" on Google, for example [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] — I believe all of these qualify for WP:GNG. -- intgr [talk] 15:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• Keep: It is very straightforward to find acceptable sources for this corporation's notability, including the "Canada's largest software company" claim (I added this to the article). mrdaikatana [talk] 12:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• Keep Clearly passes WP:CORP. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• Keep: It is very straightforward to find acceptable sources for this corporation's notability, including the "Canada's largest software company" claim (I added this to the article). mrdaikatana [talk] 12:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• Keep Changing my vote. The resources have been updated and it looks good. Since I nominated it, can I somehow undo it? I'm looking into it but if someone wants to speed it along I'd be happy for advise.--Cmurphey80 (talk) 15:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)