Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BigMachines

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BigMachines

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

Article reads like its solely written for Search Enging Optimization purposes or a marketing piece and doubtful notability outside of its niche market segment — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arekusandaa (talk • contribs) 02:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To disagree with the nominator, this page here is utterly devoid of information on products or even the basic purposes, applications, and functionality of the company's software. Based in that, it's not an SEO article, and I'm not sure how it could be a marketing piece and be this bad. The reflist is full of self-referenced items and broken links to auto-refreshing news pages. My suspicion is that the company is mildly notable per various sources they show [Here], but the article is a mess that needs clean-up. I'll refrain from siding until I can check the refs more, but I tend to think this is an editing issue, not an AFD one. Celtechm (talk) 03:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also leaning Keep, but cleanup necessary ...some promising refs listed in link above (Co's news page), but not archived trough the original publication. Promising ref [Here], but I can only see the first 2 paragraphs. Celtechm (talk) 03:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep and cleanup - Appears to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Examples include: [1], [2], [3]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 04:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep - Independent coverage isn't very deep but, gad, there is a lot of it.[4][5][6][7][8] Also saw many job opening announcements and business notes about the company and its growth during bad economic times. I didn't find enough to develop a substantial article, though. Like others, I'm on-the-fence but tilted toward keep. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 04:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Needs to be cleaned-up, but otherwise appears to be somewhat notable. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:19, 13 November 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.