Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technology Group International (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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 13:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Technology Group International

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Since a prod was contested, the author has added a whole list of references to establish notability. After looking through them, I'm kind of undecided, since some of them are press releaseses, quite a few of the articles are from the same author (Thomas R. Cutler) or mention the company relatively briefly. Overall I'd might keep it, but wanted others to take a look. S.K. 16:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep 35,000 ghits, combined with the current quality of the article, is enough. YechielMan 17:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 *  Provisional keep, provided that the description that they are a "provider of enterprise business solutions" gets edited to something more specific and concrete, and less buzzwordy. They seem instead to be a software business, not a chemical company; their products do not involve "solutions", and emptily grandiose promotional prose like that does not belong in an encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

@SK: I was similarly undecided about my articles. However, I looked into Mr. Culver's contributions elsewhere and opted to give the benefit of the doubt - he's a regular contributor to nearly two dozen industry publications, most in the manufacturing and distribution sectors, where this company's software is used. @Smerdis: I respectfully disagree with your characterization of the use of "business solutions" as "grandiose". However, as it is the commonly accepted way to describe products/services that solve business problems, your point about buzzwords is well taken and I have edited accordingly. Missysedai 22:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ". . . (E)nterprise business software for manufacturers and distributors" is much better, describing both the actual product and who might find it useful in relatively specific terms. FWIW, "business solution" is a pet peeve of mine: my strongly held opinion is that the phrase is vague, and reeks of overconfidence.  - Smerdis of Tlön 00:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * &emsp; Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  &emsp; Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Most of the supporting articles were written by the same marketing consultant and say very little about the company.  Although this article throws out big numbers, those simply refer to the annual sales of the companies that it is targeting.  I see nothing that independently gives any basis for determining that this company is notable. -- DS1953 talk  00:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Reads like an excerpt from a prospectus. Suggest author consult WP:CORP before re-creation. --Aarktica 15:40, 28 April 2007 (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.