Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March Information 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. Pastordavid (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

March Information Systems

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


 * Queried speedy delete . Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. A software and consultancy company without any showing of notability.  Their main product was apparently bought out and rebranded some time ago. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Has secondary source(s) meeting WP:CORP. I guess Smerdis looked before I had chance to add these, as I promised when querying the SpeedyDelete of this article. Please note that this article dates back to 2004 and predates WP:CORP by nearly a year, so it isn't surprising it wasn't originally written to that standard. And the fact the company was bought out some time ago is neither here nor there; historical information is often more valuable than current. -- Chris j wood (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Sold for a measly $7.65 and then asset stripped (product transferred to another company) doesn't look notable to me. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I presume you meant to say a measly $7.65 million. But 'dollar valuation' is not a consideration in WP:CORP anyway, and nor should it be. Think of the difficulty in trying to set a threshold. And your comment on asset stripping is just plain POV. -- Chris j wood (talk) 09:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, yes I meant a measly $6.75. I also meant to say have a look at WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/reading.ac.uk. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Question: Please explain your last cryptic comment. I don't see anything relevant on WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/reading.ac.uk. -- Chris j wood (talk) 10:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. As there are no reliable sources cited, I am persuaded that the article does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Question. Why do you categorise CNET Networks as a non-reliable source?. -- Chris j wood (talk) 11:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect to IBM Internet Security Systems, it's all there. - Nabla (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2008 (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.