Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cougar Software

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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 07:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cougar Software

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

Sources and search show a lack of Notability. Nearly all of the third-party search results are just re-printed press releases and half of the sources are first-party. I see no independent, third-party, reliable sources for this company. Stesmo (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would like the opportunity to bring this page up to appropriate editorial standards and am trying to seek more third party information on the industry and subject matter area in which the company works. Any feedback or examples that you can offer, Stesmo, would be greatly appreciated. As the company is in a similar space to MRI Software, would like to find out why the Cougar Software article is not tagged as "needs work" etc. rather than "to be deleted" ... VickiZ (talk) 20:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentContinued discussion on VickiZ's talk page. Stesmo (talk) 18:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for more info on why we base these discussions on Wikipedia's policies as a whole rather than comparisons with other articles. Since you asked, though, I took a peek at MRI Software and considered putting it up for AfD as well before finding that someone had already done so in the recent past (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MRI Software)--that discussion concluded with no clear consensus, so it stayed. --Finngall ^talk 22:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentThank you for the additional insights, Finngall VickiZ (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am the original author and I would like to keep this page. I think there is genuine notability for this company in the industry and space in which they work, the description and details provided thus far are clear and specific in terms of delineating where this company fits in its industry, but acknowledge that more independent information needs to be added to confirm that the company is indeed notable. I'm seeking and adding those details as I'm able to find them, welcome assistance from other editors and would like the opportunity to continue augmenting the page. VickiZ (talk) 20:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to fail WP:CORP, as I was unable to find any non-trivial WP:SECONDARY coverage. AlanS (talk) 11:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 10:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 28 August 2014 (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.