Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GlobalLogic


 * 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   keep. Accusations of WP:SPAM do not hold their weight against actual reliable sources. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 21:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

GlobalLogic

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Advertisement for a non-notable business.

Contested proposed deletion. After tagging for WP:PROD, User:GlobalLogic added a bunch of alleged "sources", but going through them reveals that they are press releases or press release based stories, announcing routine acquisitions, financing deals, and the openings of facilities; neither significant coverage nor truly independent sources. (Hint: when the "sources" say stuff like a leading global provider of outsourced product development services or the leader in global product development (GPD), that isn't an independent source.) Many are on IT-related spamblogs or PR aggregators and other small-audience forums.

My own search finds similar results: a whole lot of press releases announcing routine transactions. Searching for the former name IndusLogic yields similar results. But the problem is, even if better sources can be found, the article will still be about an IT outsourcing business. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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! 15:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delet. WP:SPAM. - DonCalo (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - It would be helpful to specifically state which part of the WP:SPAM guideline page is being referred to. Referring to entire guideline pages doesn't qualify an article deletion. Northamerica1000 (talk) 18:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Smerdis's rationale seems to run counter to the instructions at Notability (organizations and companies), which never states that we cannot have articles about IT outsourcing firms. It also suggests trying to clean up articles before deleting them. Searching indicates that the article has certainly received significant independent coverage. I'll try to clean up the article a bit, as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I wouldn't go quite so far as to say that no IT outsourcing firm can ever be notable.  I do think that IT businesses in general tend to spring up quickly, are as easily bought out by others, don't market to the general public under their own brands, aren't going to become household names, aren't going to get much notice outside of publications that serve only that trade, and as such aren't going to be promising subjects for stand alone articles.  My position is that  any commercial business needs to show some kind of significant effect on history, technology, or culture before it gets a standalone article.  Notability is not temporary; finding a business notable means that people will still care five hundred years from now, and I suspect most IT businesses will fail that test.  Because money is involved, a lot of text will be generated, and as such it's hard to process signal out of the noise and find coverage that independently tells us something significant about the business.  I don't count the dozens of announcements in the self-congratulatory "we've gotten financing! we won a contract! we were at a trade show! we opened a branch! we bought out somebody! we've been bought out!" vein; and I didn't find anything that falls outside any of those categories.  If you can find better, have at it. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

 Delete or merge or redirect or something. Well, there is some coverage out there - 25 items classified by Google as 'News'. They are sometimes in reputable publications like Times of India; they are all very dull indeed. Now if GlobalLogic got into a tussle with Microsoft or the European Union, say, that would be a notable matter. But "opens an office in Santiago, Chile" - the fact is not noteworthy outside the company and its investors. So the History and Acquisitions section is not notable, I suggest. That leaves the four lines of introduction at the top and the box with 5,000+ employees. Is that worth keeping, a large IT outsourcing company? Not really, probably. But maybe it could get a mention in a list somewhere. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per two reliable sources: Reuters article, eWeek article. Both are in-depth articles about GlobalLogic. Northamerica1000 (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:SPAM. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Which part of WP:SPAM is being referred to? Is it WP:ARTSPAM? If so, how is the article considered in your opinion to be an advertisement? Northamerica1000 (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep informative, well referenced, It's not advertizment, its simply leting people know about it, I see no reason to not have it on wikipedia – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Did anyone trying to delete this bother to spend a brief moment clicking the Google news archive search link at the top of the AFD? The actions of this company are reported in many sources.   some report its "one of the largest outsourced product development companies in India" and that its a "$100-million company".   D r e a m Focus  20:24, 11 October 2011 (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.