Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intentia (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 keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Intentia

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

Lack of notability and historical significance as should be established in inline citations to reliable sources covering the subject in depth (per WP:NCORP). Survived previous AfD in 2005 because it was "publicly listed company", though still has no references. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not voting, as the administrator who denied A7, but I do want to say that this was formerly a public company in Sweden and is now an affiliate of another notable company. By the way, nominating an article for A7 after it has survived AfD once before is inappropriate. -- Y not? 17:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Both being a public company and an affiliate of another company is not relevant to notability as directly stated in WP:NCORP. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Putting that up for A7 was ridiculously wrong, the article has been around for many years, a regular prod is always better in such a case unless you are the world's foremost expert on the subject.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a Wired news story about a complaint filed, plenty of coverage about the merger, in addition to the normal sort of coverage that you'd expect from a large multinational company. Was the company so bad we need to erase it from history? Gigs (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems to me that the Wired story You are talking about (yes, the one with hatnote "Reader's advisory: Wired News has been unable to confirm some sources for a number of stories written by this author. If you have any information about sources cited in this article, please send an e-mail to sourceinfo[AT]wired.com") seems to fail WP:NCORP. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I reject the validity of all subject-specific notability guidelines and only use the general notability guideline. The Wired story was also covered by GrepLaw, ITWorld, Annenberg Online Journalism Review, and many other sources. Gigs (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I see. What other guidelines you reject? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ladies, let go of each other's hair please. Czarkoff, you don't need to answer every comment left here. Just let this AfD run its course. -- Y not? 23:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whether or not a Wired story is a reliable source or not, it's still going to be a short-lived software business that provided applications such as customer relationship management, supply chain management and asset management. The business that bought it out has already been deleted as non-notable, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawson Software. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only thing that seems even remotely notable here is the claimed 2004 revenue, but that's unsourced and the rest is extremely vague, which I can only assume is deliberate. The fact that the software company that bought them out was itself deleted as non-notable is rather telling in this case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found this[1], this [2], this [3], this [4], this [5], this better one [6], and this better one [7], and then I got tired because I figure that was enough but I am confident there are more, they are just not in the article. It took some digging to find these, and many are weeeeak, granted, but a couple are not and even the weak ones are valid sources. The term is very difficult to filter (it means "The intent" in Romanian, and something else in other languages), so you aren't going to find results in the first few pages of a google search, but I think it passes the bar. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the sources mentioned above. The concept of deleting articles because they contain buzzwords would be laughable, if it were not clearly meant seriously: that's what editing is for--and in some cases, the terms are industry standard and just as valid as specialized terms in any sport or science. DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG on the available sources. Diego (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, demonstrated to meet the GNG. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 19:04, 9 March 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.