Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cordys (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   speedy delete. Speedy G11, Highly promotional with no way of fixing it except rewriting from scratch--just like the previous incarnations of the article.  DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Cordys
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

No indication of notability of this global provider of software for business process innovation, neither in article nor in the wild. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: Hit the "news" link above -- the reliable sources jump out at you. -- BenTels (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:CORPDEPTH doesn't agree with you. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This article looks like typical corporate spam. However, on the Talk:Cordys page, in the News link that BenTels indicates, and in books such as BPM Excellence in Practice 2009, there's a significant number of discussions of the company and its approach, which altogether looks sufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. However what the article does clearly need is (a) incorporating of explicit refs and in my opinion (b) ruthless pruning of the sections on things like their user conference. AllyD (talk) 18:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, most references discuss their software, not the company itself. If any software is notable, it should have its article, but the company is something very different. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment What makes a company notable, but producing notable products? A single such does not mean the company is necessarily notable , but multiple products are the reason companies are written about. One cannot separate the company form the work it does--few companies become notable bassed only on their administrative structures. But that is not the problem here: the problem is promotionalism.  DGG ( talk ) 02:17, 30 July 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.