Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saperion (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Inadequate sourcing for notability  DGG ( talk ) 10:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Saperion
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

No evidence Saperion has been subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works in reliable independent sources, or otherwise met the criteria for notability per WP:CORP. First reference cited doesn't mention company at all; second is a trivial reference in list of vendors. Article was AfDed with result Delete in 2005, but has been recreated. Flagged for notability since November 2007. Propose Delete. DGaw (talk) 03:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete The references and sources either don't mention the company or are trivial. Needs more than this to show notability. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Just not notable enough. Wikipedia is not free advertising. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Another one of these: ....has been developing software solutions for Enterprise Content Management (ECM) systems, that brings archiving, document management and workflow functionality together in one system. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:49, 9 December 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.