Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pandesic


 * 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. North America1000 00:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Pandesic

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by anon User:2602:30A:2EFE:F050:E52A:8C67:E2A2:B864 with the following rationale "WP:CONTESTED"; that anon deprodded a number of articles with such meaningless rationale before disappearing, likely a WP:POINT disruption or a spammer trying to waste our time. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  06:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  06:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Does not appear to meet WP:ORG criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 07:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a stub, and based on WP:BEFORE the criteria is whether notabilty exists, not whether it's been demonstrated or proven in the article. Regarding "spam", there is no advertisement here as the company is defunct and offers no product or service -- therefore it logically cannot be spam. Sbwoodside (talk) 03:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Stubs are not auto-notable. Please read up on our policies. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that stubs are auto-deletable? Please cite the guidelines you are referring to. Sbwoodside (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, I am just saying that your arguments looks like saying stubs are auto-notable. And, for the record, they are not. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.    </li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li> The article notes: "THEY were once the Web's shining stars: Kozmo.com, Pandesic.com, PlanetRx.com. In the era of the digital plague, they have vanished seemingly without a trace -- unless, that is, you go to the Museum of E-Failure." Although this is a passing mention, it is worth noting that The New York Times]] considered Pandesic "once [among] the Web's shining stars".</li> <li> The book notes: "In 1997, for example, SAP and Intel launched Pandesic, a joint venture to bring a simpler, less-expensive version of SAP's enterprise planning software to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). SAP historically targeted huge corporations, but that market was becoming saturated. ... The market needs solutions that can break down these barriers [wealth, time, and access barriers]. Pandesic was an attempt to seize this market in SAP's white space. Being the offspring of two tech companies, Pandesic treated the challenge as a technical, product problem. It was led by managers who were deeply familiar with huge, complex global organizations, established markets, and well-defined product lines but had utterly no experience identifying and establishing an initial foothold in a new market with a disruptive product. Perhaps not surprisingly, then, its offering quickly evolved into a complex, automated end-to-end solution, which was neither easy to learn nor easy to operate. It marketed the product through the same channel partners that sold SAP's large company systems—IT implementation consultants such as Accenture. That core sales channel, however, had few incentives to sell Pandesic's simpler product, which didn't need implementation support, when it could make subsantial money on traditional SAP products. Encumbered by the business model that worked so successfully in SAP's core markets, and not fully realizing that reaching this new customer required a different business model, Pandesic failed miserably. It shuds its doors in February 2001 after having burned through more than $100 million."</li> <li>There are numerous sources about the subject on Google Books.</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Pandesic to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 07:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * The subject has received significant coverage for its founding in 1997 and its closing in 2000. Its closing was covered by The Wall Street Journal. The New York Times considered Pandesic "once [among] the Web's shining stars". The subject was the subject of a case study by the Harvard Business Review in 1999.  In 2013, the subject received significant coverage in Mark W. Johnson's 2013 book, "Seizing the White Space: Business Model Innovation for Growth and Renewal", which was published by Harvard Business Press. That the subject has received significant coverage in a book more than a decade after it became defunct strongly establishes that it is notable per Notability and Notability (organizations and companies).  Cunard (talk) 07:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 14:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * This is a very thorough list. This reminds me a bit of Taligent. Sbwoodside (talk) 04:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Pandesic does have a couple parallels with Taligent. Cunard (talk) 05:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Current state doesn't promote the company or its products more showing the failures. Cunard's research displays that Pandemic had significant notable coverage during the 1990s-2000s. News Team   Assemble! [talk?] 17:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The biggest question here, isn't to keep the article, but "Why is this a stub?" --<i style="color:#B00000; font-family:Casual;">MurderByDeletionism</i><sup style="color:black;">"bang!" 19:42, 3 December 2015 (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.