Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genesys Conferencing

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. - Bobet 21:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genesys Conferencing

The article is a spam-like profile of a non-notable software company. Despite my attempts to find information on Google to improve the article, there does not seem to be any mention of this company outside press releases and the one BBC video. —ptk★fgs 14:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They exist, and were notable/large enough to be the the conferencing supplier for a company the size of Sun Microsystems in the UK before services were centralised across Sun (via AT&T) some two years ago. I still have my Genesys card in my wallet, (though I've now parted company with Sun and they no longer use Genesys). Keep. Tonywalton | Talk 15:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As written, the article does not provide an assertion of notability supported by "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Thus, fails WP:V and WP:CORP. --Satori Son 14:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs to comply with WP:V but there's no reason it couldn't. This is significant, international company, not a vanity article. Mango juice^talk 13:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 17:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a major company with significant market status. The article asserts notability but requires some sources to meet WP:V. BFD1 18:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a couple of external links for "non-trival works whose source is independent of the company itself" but there are plenty more out there. Yomangani^talk 22:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment ~~I only see one new link, and it's to a product review. We need to get this spam off the encyclopedia. This is shameful. —ptk✰fgs 19:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]
  - Comment Okay, the new links did it. I still think it's a borderline case, but I'm satisfied of their notability. —ptk✰fgs 23:27, 14 August 2006 (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.