Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CMX Technologies (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

CMX Technologies
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:CORP. I checked around and didn't find any additional sources. Right now, the article relies solely on the fact that the company achieved a rating of #3404 on a Top 5000 list.  Ish dar  ian  03:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Wikipedia appears to have a number of corporate listings for companies that appear on lists or have only a short description. For example, why are these pages notable HostGator, Platinum Solutions, VTLS, TerreStar Networks, Architecture, Incorporated yet the one up for discussion considered subjectively not notable?  I understand the points made, however I think the opinions are subjectively applied so I'm playing devil's advocate and recommending that this article remain and allow for more sources to be added. The author appears to want more time, so let's keep it. Fallbrews (talk) 02:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete only database entries available; fails GNG. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 07:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-notable company at this time, the listing achievement appears to be the only significance and would be insufficient. Google News archives provided one news article here and a reprint of this first one here. Considering that 2005 was the establishment, I narrowed results from 2005 to the present but found no additional relevant sources. However, I added "consulting" to the search and found two mentions here and here as part of a list. SwisterTwister   talk  19:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Can't say I'm impressed by the refs. Having had a former astronaut on the management team means little - what qualification for management consultancy is being an astronaut? Being anywhere below the first ten on a sizeable list means little. And that basically is the content of the refs. Not what I would call widespread coverage. Not all companies get articles, and some fields are more prone to notability than others, largely because they are more in the public eye. Management consultancy isn't a line that tends to grab headlines, like banking does, or be widely known to people, like insurance is. It's more in the back room sort of area. I'm not saying the company isn't doing a good job. Whether it is or isn't is irrelevant here. If suitable references can be found to support a bit more of a claim to notability than having employed an astronaut, and doing jobs for the government, then I'll reconsider. Peridon (talk) 23:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, uw-leave-astronauts-alone, they can have advanced degrees and quite appropriate training for such a consultancy. Anyways, I'd be satisfied with just two more beefy discussions in independent reliable sources, to keep. Pretty low bar, really. --Lexein (talk) 09:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.