Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catapult Systems


 * 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 22:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Catapult Systems

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Smallish consulting firm in Texas with no mainstream media coverage; refs are all press releases. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  21:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. per nom. Possibly a spam advertisement. -- Ray-Ginsay (talk) 05:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom, borderline WP:SPEEDY G11 but has some encyclopedic contentRcurtis5 (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Catapult Systems is a legit, national Microsoft IT consulting company that has been in business since 1993. And, they have stellar customer list. Nancyrush (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody is questioning your company's legitimacy, or that of your customers. Please don't take this as a referendum on that or on Catapult's worth or anything else. We just try to limit the coverage here (on every subject) so that Wikipedia doesn't get excessively unwieldy. Please read WP:ORG to see our rules on inclusion for businesses, and let us know if you still think the company should have an article when going of those, and, if so, why.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  17:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks much, we understand the situation now. We do believe the company should have an article; to support this we've added a number of secondary references to show national media coverage, and will continue to do so on a regular basis as Catapult Systems continues to grow and receive accolades that are of national interest.--Nancyrush (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - I don't see significant coverage from independent reliable sources. What I do see is a lot of press releases. -- Whpq (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2009 (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.