Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CoSoSys

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CoSoSys

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Non-notable company. It is referenced but it is a small company (in global terms) that has nothing of interest for an encyclopaedia. Also, having this article gives the company an unfair commercial advantage. It is essentially spam by stealth. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see significant coverage in reliable sources. That's what counts, not how big or how small or how interesting it is. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we take that stance don't you think WP will become top heavy with article about companies? BTW, a blog is not a reliable source. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares? Is there a ration or world shortage of disk space? If it passes WP:GNG it can stay. As for your blog comment, a textbook argument to avoid per WP:JUSTABLOG. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly weak keep. Sufficient coverage exists to make the company's Endpoint Protector product notable. Whether there is enough about the company itself is less clear. --Michig (talk) 20:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But notability is not inherited. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created this article initially since I am a user of this company’s product and noticed that it didn’t have an article, but its competitors did. Since I found many independent references I thought it to be notable enough for a WP article. When time allows I will add more references and develop the article. --Contribute23 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.