Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PROS (company)


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. (non-admin closure) Desertarun (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

PROS (company)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Sources are largely routine transactional coverage, not in-depth and independent. No evidence of notability. Previously deleted and salted at PROS * Pppery * it has begun... 16:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Travel and tourism,  and United States of America. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment. That's odd. I would normally expect a company listed on the New York Stock Exchange to have lots of coverage. Perhaps the problem is that hits are being masked by other uses of the word Pros. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep, just barely  This company may have the worst search-optimized name of all time, complicating any BEFORE search, but I am having a hard time finding independent, secondary, reliable sources providing significant coverage to meet WP:NORG. Examples: Reuters (already cited in article; trivial coverage); the three Houston Business Journal pieces already cited (trivial coverage); and an additional Reuters story (trivial coverage). However, I can identify an additional Houston Business Journal story and two scholarly book mentions (here, here). I think it just scrapes under the line, but it's close. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC) Updating my view to "keep" based on the analyst reports identified by Cunard below. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. From Notability (organizations and companies) (my bolding): "There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports." Analyst reports https://www.marketbeat.com/stocks/NYSE/PRO/price-target/Internet Archive contains a list of analyst reports available under a paywall: There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow PROS to pass Notability (organizations and companies), which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 10:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC) 
 * Keep per sources identified by Cunard. ~Kvng (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per the sources by Cunard. They prove GNG. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2024 (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.