Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Datamatics Global Services


 * 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   no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 19:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Datamatics Global Services

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Advertisement for another software services and consulting company. Current text is unambiguous advertising: References are to press releases about executive hires, routine contract announcements, and stock market data pages. Being the first company in the world to guarantee 99.997% accuracy level in Data Capture does not seem to be the sort of achievement that should be remembered for all time in an encyclopedia. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The company provides business solutions to a wide range of industry verticals and the service offerings span across IT consulting, business process transformation, off-the-shelf technology solutions and customized software services.It also provides services to embedded engineering and telecommunications, solutions for ticketing, toll and parking applications.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Can we work towards improving than deleting? KuwarOnline Talk''' 18:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? It's just another IT outsourcing business.  Why should such a thing be covered in an encyclopedia? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - There is nothing notable here, and certainly not neutral (the term 'solutions' appears three times in the first four paragraphs. Even if this is notable, it will require a fundamental rewrite to achieve the required neutrality. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. It looks to me like it just about passes the GNG and, specifically, WP:CORP. I was hitherto unaware that our policies set a higher bar for IT outsourcing businesses or excluded them altogether - could somebody point out the specific policy? bobrayner (talk) 09:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Do you have specific sources that establish that this business has made history in its field?  I don't believe the references currently in the article get there. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Which policy requires that a business "makes history in its field"? I searched through Notability and didn't find a single mention of "history". It's mentioned in your essay, of course, but that's not a policy no matter how often you link to WP:B2B at AfD. It would also help if you could clarify how we set a higher bar for IT outsourcing businesses or excluded them altogether, as I can't find a policy basis for that either. bobrayner (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * From the beginning, when 'notability' was selected as the name for the kind of significance needed to make something a stand alone encyclopedia article subject, it has always meant long term historical notability. "Notable" for our purposes is exactly the same thing as "important enough to support a stand alone encyclopedia article", and since notability is not temporary, if it's notable now it must be notable forever.  For that reason, the business notability guideline asks whether a business has had significant effects on history, technology, or culture, and when the possibility exists of commercial conflict of interest, I think it's reasonable to expect that kind of significance before allowing in obvious spam like this. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 01:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Keep It meets the relevant guideline. "Makes history in its field" is more like the equivalent of famous, and is not required for notability--but in fact the article claims it has reached the highest rate of accuracy ever in its field--it would be good to have a 3rd party source for that. The only special problem with outsourcing companies is that it's usually harder to find references than businesses that directly serve consumers. . When there are, this makes all the more reason to keep it. Smerdis' argument amounts to IDONTTHINKITBELONGSHERE, as a pure personal opinion, unsupported by policy and consequently irrelevant to the discussion.  DGG ( talk ) 03:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC).
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Appears to just barely meet wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 17:38, 11 February 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.