Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phase2 International


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Phase2 International

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable company. Promotional, out of 21 refs, all but 2 or 3 are self-published and thus not reliable sources. GHits are predominately social media and advert sites. GNews shows only 2 hits, both already listed as refs. GregJackP  Boomer!   15:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: Maybe a bit too many self-published sources, but this company is notable and the article is concise. The Redmondmag, TechCrunch, and CRN are reliable sources that all have oversight and satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. 108.21.12.231 (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * delete Very few real sources here, and those that are don't go beyond [WP:MILL, "Cloud computing business does some cloud computing" Andy Dingley (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)




 * Keep Notability established by significant mention multiple reliable sources cited by article. Specifically:, and . -—Kvng 04:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak delete - this article has a bizarre history. It seems to have first been created as a WP:FAKEARTICLE attached to User:Phase. Then a new user appeared and moved it (twice I think?). Now it's here. 13 of the 21 "sources" are actually pages on the company's own site - worthless for GNG and basically link-spam. Some of the others are directory listings, sales pages and the like. There's maybe 2-3 good sources (the ones provided by Kvng above, basically - nice work mate!). That's not really enough for me for a company with no other real claim to notability. Just an ordinary company that happens to have been mentioned in a few industry magazines. Coverage, sure, but nothing that suggests it's not just another tech company looking to use WP for WP:PROMO. But there is some coverage there, so I'm not strongly opposed to keeping it. I just can't see any great encyclopedic value in doing so. Stalwart 111  09:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep A "bizarre history" is not a policy-based reason for deletion. The company has multiple instances of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Maybe worthy of a copy edit or advert tag, but not a deletion. 77.223.133.20 (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And you'll note I didn't suggest it was. I suggested that the 2-3 half-decent references attached to the article wouldn't, in my opinion, be enough to meet notability guidelines. As Andy Dingley said, this seems to mostly be a run-of-the-mill company, not a specifically notable one. Stalwart 111  22:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Notability requirement is multiple qualified sources. I have identified 3 qualified sources. Usually two or more meets the multiple requirement. What is your criterion? -—Kvng 00:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's true, but I suppose I've taken WP:ORGSIG and WP:CORPDEPTH into account too. Two of those sources (while obviously independent of each other) cover the same product announcement relating to Lotus on Demand. The third deals with other services. It's obviously a subjective quantification, but I also can't see the "significant or demonstrable effects" the company has had to otherwise get me over the line. But hey, my opinion was weak for a reason because the question, for me, has come down subjective criteria. Not enough for me might be more than enough for someone else. I'm always open to being convinced and, for me, a single extra source would probably do it in this particular case. Stalwart 111  01:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 18:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Leaning towards delete - As mentioned, the CRN article is pretty detailed about their services but the other links, techcrunch (talks more about pricing and reads like an advertisement, nothing useful for this article) and redmondmag.com aren't as much. After two different searches, I'm concerned at the amount of press releases, here (search #1) and here (search #2). A third search didn't even provide anything different and useful here (this third search provided all press releases except for the first result) and thefreelibrary.com provided another press release here. Some of these (particularly the first search) are irrelevant because "Phase 2" is commonly used for other things but I'm not seeing much notability. Search #2 provided two local news articles in Hawaii (Pacific Business News and Honolulu Advertiser) along with another CRN article here. Curious about their history, I searched for any useful results but I only found this (another Hawaii news article) and a press release for a new VP in 2008 here. I recognize that some articles from Techcrunch and CRN are reliable and Phase2 has been associated with IBM and Microsoft, and at some point Dell, but I think Phase2 may be under the bar notable (large amounts of press releases are usually a concern). SwisterTwister   talk  20:55, 20 January 2013 (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.