Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integration Technologies Group

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. KTC (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Integration Technologies Group

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

Delete, appears to fail WP:CORP notability. All the sources that seem to be available are PR websites or newsites. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It was in the news this week, here, from the Pentagon, but it was a passing mention. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Its a pretty scrappy article, primary claim to fame is it's a prime contractor to parts the US Army and US IRS, but prime contractor here means being able to bid on contracts. There are not first in line. There is much bigger companies like EDS and IBM. References are all self referential or point to news letter types. It has been around for a fair while though, since 1984, which confers some notability. scope_creep talk 19:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability doesn't depend on age, but on sources. Can you please point us to two acceptable sources? —Unforgettableid (talk) 04:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This one-sided article is just an ad for ITG, which appears to be a non-notable "provider" of IT "solutions". ISTM that the article was probably created by an ITG employee. It read like a news release at the time it was created. User:Shawn in Montreal has improved it somewhat, but it still reads like a news release. Most of the Google News hits for ITG are press releases. If someone finds two acceptable sources later, then they can ask the closing admin to undelete it. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 04:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's an ad for the company. Established companies don't post ad article on Wikipedia for advert purposes, and expect to gain business. They are well established, known by their customers and suppliers, and the government, stuck in their firmament. But, I think it is useful to have a WP article for people who are looking for some useful surface information about the company, perhaps for recruitment. The fact it's not readily findable by Google also doesn't mean it's not notable. Such contractor generally don't have a large public facing component, since they are usually dealing with the military or US government. So I think if it has a chance to be improved, it should be kept. scope_creep talk 00:20, 03 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it simply does not appear to be notable.. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:59, 9 September 2013 (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.