Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phocas Software

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phocas Software

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Created by a single purpose editor. Looks like an advert, and the sourcing I found is mainly PR like stories. The industry recognition hardly adds to notability. Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, England, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I cleaned up the article a bit, removed unsourced sections and primary sources. Company is covered by Gartner. The sources is a press release as Gartner reports are only available for a fee, but the fact that Gartner had covered them should be considered as one good citation. The company was also in Deloitte Technology Fast 50. In addition, The Australian Financial Review has 2 articles on them. Any COI issues should be addressed outside AFD.Bikerose (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the AFR coverage is actually OK, but it's just one source – we need multiple sources to satisfy NCORP. Apart from the AFR, there are a few promising pieces (SmartCompany being a representative example) but they're all ultimately too reliant on information from company spokespeople to be properly independent. There's a bit of coverage in region-specific sources (e.g. New Zealand, Orange, and Coventry newspapers) that take the angle "company brings jobs to region", but again these reports rely too heavily on these spokespeople and don't provide independent analysis. I don't necessarily agree Gartner coverage contributes to notability; I would need to see what specific coverage is relied upon. Deloitte Fast 50 is a clearly trivial source.

It's closer than many businesses to passing NCORP, but it's not yet there. In the end, the version of this article put up for deletion was so grossly promotional and undersourced that we're not losing much by deleting it. – Teratix ₵ 14:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although the company has been mentioned by analyst firms, for example Gartner (Magic Quadrant for BI and Analytics Platforms 2015 - company only gets a mere mention in the "Other Modern" category) and Forrester Wave Enterprise Business Intelligence Platforms 2015, neither conducted an in-depth review of the company nor their product, so those reports fail the criteria for establisting notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:41, 15 April 2024 (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.