Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apex Analytix

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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apex Analytix

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

non notable company. Refs are basically press releases or notices about private financing. Since every company in the world has financing from somewhere, such refs do not show notability DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are over a dozen full articles written about the company, none of which are press releases, all of which are in legitimate publications. There is no reason this article does not pass GNG. The company's software is used by 40% of all Fortune 500 companies, which means it has a high profile and historical value. It's a quickly written page, I could have added in a lot more sources. It would be one thing if there were actual press releases to be pointed to, these are all articles that comply with Wikipedia's MOS. Private financing is only a small part of this page, but even under that rubric, it's just blatantly untrue that every company has their funding written about in RS, or even that RS about "certain things" should be excluded. Usterday (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral but maybe actually leaning delete for now until a better article can be made as the best my searches found was this, this, this and this. SwisterTwister talk 03:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some additional articles to the page now, from Financial Times, Accounting Today, Computer World, and others. I have also fleshed out some of the citations so that their publication information is clearer in case of confusion. Usterday (talk) 14:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as per GNG, obvi enough RS refs, could be more Neutral. 24.114.78.27 (talk) 21:21, 6 November 2015 (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.